Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Interests => Theology Forum => Topic started by: 19 on Sat Jun 30, 2018 - 09:54:36

Title: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Sat Jun 30, 2018 - 09:54:36
Rom 3: 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. NKJV

God is righteous- who does He need to demonstrate it to? He doesn't need to demonstrate it to anybody. He is God and doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. However, God loves His creation and it's important to Him that we know Him. We cannot love anyone unless we know them. We cannot trust someone unless we know their character. We cannot have faith in anyone unless we know them and love them. We are saved by faith therefore God wanted to prove His righteousness to us so we could have complete faith in Jesus.

The only way to be righteous is to obey all of God's laws all the time. Therefore, for God to be righteous it means that He obeys His own laws. How does passing over the sins previously committed demonstrate His righteousness?

Remember the flood,  Sodom, the Canaanites all those occasions in the old testament where it says God killed people who were unrighteous. He did not send them to hell for their sins. Could God be righteous if He judged each person by a different standard?

Prov 11:1 Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, But a just weight is His delight. NKJV

Is God only worried about the scales of commerce and not the scales of Justice? No. Justice demands equal punishment for equal crime. Therefore, God is saying that everyone from the beginning  of time will be judged by one law.  That is: have you accepted the covering for sin that God provided.

We can have complete faith in Jesus alone because God will only punish eternally those who do not accept His salvation.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Jun 30, 2018 - 14:17:31
removed
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Sat Jun 30, 2018 - 14:26:45
THIS IS A PATTERN FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT SPEAK THE WORD: THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST SAYS THAT THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM.

Rom. 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom. 3:2 Much every way:
        chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3051. logion, log´-ee-on; neuter of 3052; an utterance (of God): — oracle. The Word, Dabar or Greek Logos is the "THAT CONCERNING ME" Says Jesus who defines EXCLUSIVELY the Speaking Roles in the Great Commission.  Peter understood that:

         1Pet. 4:11 If ANY man SPEAK, 
               let him speak as the oracles of God;
        if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth:
        that GOD
        in all things may be glorified
        through Jesus Christ,
        to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Rom. 3:3 For what if some did not believe?
        shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Rom. 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;
        as it is written, That thou mightest be JUSTIFYIED in THY SAYINGS
        and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom. 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God,
        what shall we say?
        Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

THERE IS PROBABLY NO GREATER INSULT THAN TO COLLECT PAYING AUDIENCE TO SPEAK YOUR OWN WORDS AND CLAIM TO SPEAK THE ORACLES OF GOD.

Rom. 3:6 God forbid:
        for then how shall God judge the world?
Rom. 3:7 For if the TRUTH of God hath more abounded
        through my lie unto his glory;
        why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
Rom. 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported,
        and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil,
        that good may come? whose damnation is just.
Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they?
        No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles,
        that they are all under sin;
Rom. 3:10 As it is written,
        There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom. 3:11 There is none that UNDERSTANDETH,
        there is none that SEEKETH after God.

    Is. 1:3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib:
             but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
    Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a SEED of evildoers,
            children that are corrupters:
            they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked [blasphemaverunt]
            The Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
    Isaiah 1:8  And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard,
            as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.
    Isaiah 1: 9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant,
            we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.


    Is. 1:10 Hear the WORD of the LORD, ye RULERS of Sodom;
            give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

        Rev. 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city,
        which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified

    The Spirit OF Christ contradicts. God said nothing about their mental attutude:

    Is. 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD:
            I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts;
            and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

THE ASSEMBLY OR SYNAGOGUE OF CHRIST IS BUILT UPON OR EDUCATED BY THE PROPHETS AND APOSTLES.  LET ME KNOW WHETHER YOUR RULERS HAVE DUCT TAPED THE MOUTH OF JESUS.

    Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their RULERS,
            because they knew him not,
            nor yet the voices of the prophets
            which are READ every sabbath day,
            they have fulfilled them in condemning him
    Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city
            them that PREACH him,
            being READ in the synagogues every sabbath day.
    Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up:
            and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath [REST] day,
            and stood up for to READ.
    Acts 13:15 And after the READING of the law and the prophets
            the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying,
            Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation [comfort]
            for the people, say on.


You say a lot but it doesn't pertain to the post. It sounds like you are saying there is no light in me. That would indicate that you think I am not saved?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Jun 30, 2018 - 15:11:10
removed
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Sat Jun 30, 2018 - 16:59:24
If you quote one verse from Romans 3 then the rest of Romans needs to be discussed. I was quoting Scripture which I though you might recognize:

Is. 8:19 And when they shall say unto you,
       Seek unto them that have familiar spirits,
       and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter:
       should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Is. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony:
       if they SPEAK not according to this WORD,
       it is because there is no light in them.

Much of the time Paul is not discussing denominational DOGMA but is a commentary on the prophets and DEBUNKING the Jews whose RULERS were ignorant because they REJECT the Pattern established for the Church in the Wilderness and never changed.


You start your reply to my first post with “this is a pattern for those who do not speak the word of God: The Spirit of Christ says there is no light in them” and it is in all caps which is equivalent to yelling.

That statement has nothing to do with the topic

Then you reply if one scripture from Romans is cited then the topic is all of Romans. By that logic anything posted has no topic that has to be adhered to when replying to a post.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Jun 30, 2018 - 19:36:34
What I wrote about Romans 3:25 intended to extend your comments with SCRIPTURE.  I thought you might be interested in some of the definitions and cross references. If you think that quoting the CONTEXT is speaking about you I will post my comments elsewhere.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 01, 2018 - 12:21:20
19,
Quote
That is: have you accepted the covering for sin that God provided.

We can have complete faith in Jesus alone because God will only punish eternally those who do not accept His salvation.
I'm sorry, where in the New Testament does it say that "accepting" the covering for sin and "accepting" His salvation are how one comes into salvation?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Sun Jul 01, 2018 - 15:43:45
19,I'm sorry, where in the New Testament does it say that "accepting" the covering for sin and "accepting" His salvation are how one comes into salvation?

Your right. It does not explicitly say that one accepts salvation.

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) NKJV

What free gift is Paul writing about in the above? The answer is in verse 17. The gift is the gift of righteousness.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. NKJV

In Romans 6:23 above the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. It's the same because “in Jesus” a person has the righteousness of Jesus.

1 Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. NKJV

Jesus is the savior of the world.

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. NKJV

Jesus is not only our propitiation for our sin. He is the propitiation for the sins of the world.

This is because God gave the world a free gift. Am I preaching universal salvation? No. Not all people enter into heaven even though they have been given a free gift. A gift is only good to a person if they accept it. God says to accept the gift is to reply to His RSVP.

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. NKJV

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 01, 2018 - 18:48:25
19,
Quote
Your right. It does not explicitly say that one accepts salvation.
An explicit statement in the Bible is the burden of proof to authenticate a teaching.

Quote
A gift is only good to a person if they accept it. God says to accept the gift is to reply to His RSVP.
Where does God say to accept the gift? Receiving as you said earlier only refers to the event where something is given, such as when person receives a delivery from Amazon at his front door. He doesn't even have to be there when it happens. It discusses none of the precursors. You sound very steeped in evangelical rhetoric.

Quote
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
And yet the author of Romans 10 Paul, on the road to Damascus Acts 22:8-10, had done all these things. He confessed the Lord Jesus, and by the end of that encounter he certainly believed it too. And yet 3 days later it was revealed by Ananias, that his sins had not yet been washed away Acts 22:16. Although believing in Jesus and confessing him as Lord is certainly involved, there's no way Paul could have been telling his audience that this is all there is to getting saved, since it did not even completely cover his own salvation. And neither in this passage, nor in any other did Paul ever speak of simply "accepting" this gift "God, I accept your gift, thank you", as is popularly described today. This method of "accepting" is never brought up in any of the scriptures, either explicitly, or implicitly. It's not right that this should have to be pointed out. Nobody should have ever started teaching this "accepting" method of salvation without the necessary scriptural confirmation of either the instruction or example that it had been done.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 07:06:03
19,Again, does he say that? Where? Receiving as you said earlier only refers to the event where is given to a , such as when person receives a delivery from Amazon at his front door. He doesn't even have to be there when it happens. It discusses none of the precursors.
And yet the author of Romans 10 Paul, on the road to Damascus Acts 22:8-10, had done all these things. He confessed the Lord Jesus, and by the end of that encounter he certainly believed it too. And yet 3 days later it was revealed by Ananias, that his sins had not yet been washed away Acts 22:16. Although believing in Jesus and confessing him as Lord is certainly involved, there's no way Paul could have been telling his audience that this is all there is to getting saved, since it did not even completely cover his own salvation. And neither in this passage, nor in any other did Paul ever speak of simply "accepting" this gift "God, I accept your gift, thank you", as is popularly described today. This method of "accepting" is never brought up in any of the scriptures, either explicitly, or implicitly. It's not right that this should have to be pointed out. Nobody should have ever started teaching this "accepting" method of salvation without the necessary scriptural confirmation of either the instruction or example that it had been done.

Yes Paul called Jesus Lord but didn't get the Spirit until later. Paul was a Jew and had rejected Jesus.  Not only had He rejected Jesus but he had committed monstrous acts against the church. Paul was caught off guard and confessed Jesus Lord from fear.  He had to become ready to accept God's grace.

Acts 26:9 "Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.  11 And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. NKJV

Paul became a monster in order to eradicate the church. In the above he admits to torturing believers so they would blaspheme. He had to come to terms with his past actions against the church and Jesus. I have witnessed to people who were convinced that God could not forgive them because their sins were, to them, unforgivable .  I believe Paul had to be able to forgive himself before he could accept forgiveness from God. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 07:21:25
Yes Paul called Jesus Lord but didn't get the Spirit until later. Paul was a Jew and had rejected Jesus.  Not only had He rejected Jesus but he had committed monstrous acts against the church. Paul was caught off guard and confessed Jesus Lord from fear.  He had to become ready to accept God's grace.
Paul didn't call Jesus Lord when confronted on the road to Damascus.  He recognized that the one confronting him was Lord  --  Lord in the sense of YHWH of the Old Covenant, the Covenant he knew and recognized.  His question was really, "What do you mean 'persecuting' you?"  He thought he was doing the Lord's work in his persecution.  It was Jesus who identified Himself as Lord.  It was only after Jesus identified Himself that Paul accepted who Jesus really was.  Clearly in that instant and during the next three days Paul came to the understanding of just who Jesus really was and believed in Him.  But still it was only after that that his sins were forgiven [washed away in baptism] and thereby saved.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 09:38:24
Paul didn't call Jesus Lord when confronted on the road to Damascus.  He recognized that the one confronting him was Lord  --  Lord in the sense of YHWH of the Old Covenant, the Covenant he knew and recognized.  His question was really, "What do you mean 'persecuting' you?"  He thought he was doing the Lord's work in his persecution.  It was Jesus who identified Himself as Lord.  It was only after Jesus identified Himself that Paul accepted who Jesus really was.  Clearly in that instant and during the next three days Paul came to the understanding of just who Jesus really was and believed in Him.  But still it was only after that that his sins were forgiven [washed away in baptism] and thereby saved.

In other words you are saying that one is not saved until being baptized. In several places it does say “be baptized” for forgivness of sins.

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. NKJV

Heb 4:3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: NKJV

1 John 5:9  He has testified of His Son. 10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.
NKJV


1 Cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain. NKJV

These all speak of believing being the key to salvation. All those that speak of salvation being a gift speak to the fact that we do nothing to get salvation but receive the gift. If one has to pay anything (work or in kind) it ceases to be a gift. All we have to do is have faith.

 Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God NKJV

Even that faith is a gift. If faith were tied to a work it ceases to be a gift. We get that faith when we accept the fact (believe) that Jesus died to pay for our sins and was resurrected for our justification (Believe in Jesus).

It is a sin not to be baptized because this is the first thing God asks us to do after our conversion. When the Apostles told people to be baptized they were telling people to be obedient to the first command given. You cannot have all sins forgiven if you start out with one new one.  Disobedience causes a loss of fellowship not a loss of opportunity to be saved.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 09:52:57
In other words you are saying that one is not saved until being baptized. In several places it does say “be baptized” for forgivness of sins.
I am not saying specifically that one is not saved until being baptized.   I am saying that one is not saved until their sins are forgiven.  And the Bible says that the purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.  It also brings the gift of the Holy Spirit.  I think it is foolish to hope that God doesn't really expect the sinner to go all the way to being baptized.
Quote from: 19
Heb 4:3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: NKJV
Can one really believe in Christ Jesus and then reject what he has said about baptism?  Personally, I do not think so.
Quote from: 19
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God NKJV
Even that faith is a gift. If faith were tied to a work it ceases to be a gift. We get that faith when we accept the fact (believe) that Jesus died to pay for our sins and was resurrected for our justification (Believe in Jesus).
Most credible scholars will admit that the gift is not faith; rather the gift is being saved by grace through faith.
Quote from: 19
Disobedience causes a loss of fellowship not a loss of opportunity to be saved.
For one who has heard the gospel, believed, repented, and has been baptized, even disobedience does not cause a loss of fellowship.  The saint does not pop into and out of fellowship with each sin/repentance incident.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 12:19:38
19
Quote
In other words you are saying that one is not saved until being baptized. In several places it does say “be baptized” for forgivness of sins.
And yet it does not say "accepting salvation" in ANY place in the Bible. The burden of proof is not that it appears every time. The burden of proof is that a true teaching, as opposed to a false teaching, appears in the Bible explicitly at least once. Being baptized in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins/salvation meets that burden of proof several times, whereas the "accepting salvation" method does not meet that burden of proof at all.

Quote
Even that faith is a gift. If faith were tied to a work it ceases to be a gift. We get that faith when we believe that Jesus died to pay for our sins and was resurrected for our justification (Believe in Jesus).
The text of Bible is consistent, since there's no Biblical burden of proof met identifying baptism in Jesus's name as a work.

Quote
It is a sin not to be baptized because this is the first thing God asks us to do after our conversion. When the Apostles told people to be baptized they were telling people to be obedient to the first command given.
Again, where do any of the Apostle say that baptism is the first command after conversion, or that it even comes after conversion?  You need to stop taking for granted the stuff handed to you by the evangelical belief system and not be willing to put forth anything unless you've seen it "written" in the scriptures.

Quote
Disobedience causes a loss of fellowship not a loss of opportunity to be saved.
Really?
Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 13:13:48
19,
Quote
Yes Paul called Jesus Lord but didn't get the Spirit until later. Paul was a Jew and had rejected Jesus.  Not only had He rejected Jesus but he had committed monstrous acts against the church. Paul was caught off guard and confessed Jesus Lord from fear.  He had to become ready to accept God's grace.

Acts 26:9 "Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.  11 And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. NKJV

Paul became a monster in order to eradicate the church. In the above he admits to torturing believers so they would blaspheme. He had to come to terms with his past actions against the church and Jesus. I have witnessed to people who were convinced that God could not forgive them because their sins were, to them, unforgivable .  I believe Paul had to be able to forgive himself before he could accept forgiveness from God.
Thank you for your response. Do you not think the three days he spent not eating or drinking anything was enough time? And that he was only willing to accept God's grace when Ananias showed up? I think it was plenty of time for him to come to the realization of everything that had just happened on the road to Damascus, yet his sins were still not washed away by the time Ananias showed up.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 14:42:48
I am not saying specifically that one is not saved until being baptized.   I am saying that one is not saved until their sins are forgiven.  And the Bible says that the purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.  It also brings the gift of the Holy Spirit.  I think it is foolish to hope that God doesn't really expect the sinner to go all the way to being baptized.Can one really believe in Christ Jesus and then reject what he has said about baptism?  Personally, I do not think so.Most credible scholars will admit that the gift is not faith; rather the gift is being saved by grace through faith.For one who has heard the gospel, believed, repented, and has been baptized, even disobedience does not cause a loss of fellowship.  The saint does not pop into and out of fellowship with each sin/repentance incident.

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, NKJV

I noticed that you did not commit on the above. Paul states quite clearly that the Spirit of Jesus is given when one believes. If one has the Spirit of Jesus they are saved. To be saved one is justified or forgiven.

I hope the order corresponds to your reply. First.

Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." NKJV

The testimony of all the OT prophets is if you believe in Him ( Jesus) you will be forgiven.

Acts 13:38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. NKJV

Paul's preaching in Antioch Pisidia.

All of the above testify that to be forgiven all one has to do is believe in Jesus.

Second order of your post:

I reject the doctrine that we have to be baptized to be justified or forgiven. If by your doctrine that makes me unforgivable then I believe that your faith is divided between your work of being baptized and Jesus. Faith should be  in Jesus alone and not shared with any work of ours.

Third order of your post.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, NKJV

The following are some who agree that faith is a gift. The Abbotts' Illustrated New Testament. ESV Study Bible, Holman Bible Handbook, John Gill's Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Barnes notes on the new testament,Matthew Henry.
I have no knowledge if you consider them to be credible.

Last order of your post:

1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 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. NKJV

John is writing to a church of believers. He is warning them of losing fellowship. . Yes we do not go in and out of fellowship. But if we remain in disobedience and don't respond to correction we lose fellowship. Paul turned two believers over to Satan. I really don't know what that means but I not sure I would not feel in fellowship
in such a situation.


Reply to  e.r.m

As to accepting the gift here is the defination of accept:

1. To receive with a consenting mind (something offered); as, to accept a gift;

Syn. — To receive; take; admit.
(from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

If grace and righteousness (Ro 5:17) is a gift as stated in the bible and we accept the gift then we receive the gift with a consenting mind. I ask you: What happens if we do not accept the gift? If you did not accept His gift then how did you receive it?

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: NKJV

A synonym of receive is accept. As many as accepted Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God.   
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 15:04:34
What does it mean to "believe"?  As I asked previously, can one believe in God, Jesus Christ and the gospel and yet reject anything they say?  I don't think so.  Can you receive Him or accept Him and not receive and accept what He says? Again, I don't think so.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 02, 2018 - 21:26:13
19,
Quote
Reply to  e.r.m

As to accepting the gift here is the defination of accept:

1. To receive with a consenting mind (something offered); as, to accept a gift;

Syn. — To receive; take; admit.
(from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

If grace and righteousness (Ro 5:17) is a gift as stated in the bible and we accept the gift then we receive the gift with a consenting mind. I ask you: What happens if we do not accept the gift? If you did not accept His gift then how did you receive it?
I appreciate the hard work you put into these posts. The thing is that you were making a modern logical deduction based on their use of the word gifts. Yes, we generally accept or reject gifts. That is the discussion that surrounds gifts, in the conventional sense these days. However, in order to get a correct understanding of what they were talking about, we must see how they talk about it, instead of transposing conversations from outside the Bible. To understand what they meant, we must stay within their conversations and they're frame of mind. "The Bible authors" did not speak of in terms of accepting or receiving salvation, like one accepts a wedding gift.

Quote
John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: NKJV

A synonym of receive is accept. As many as accepted Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God.
It's a synonym, because it's not exact. Accepting involves more participation of the individual than just receiving. One does not need to be there to receive a gift if it's dropped at his doorstep, one does have to be there to accept it, generally speaking. But neither receive nor accept would help you with John 1:12. Sure, to those who gave Jesus a good reception, who gave him their attention, who gave him a chance and believed his claims, God gave the right to then become His children.
Read the text,  it doesn't say to those who received salvation or to those who received him as savior, as per evangelical lingo. It says to those who received him, He gave the "right/authority/power" (in the Greek) to become children of God. That language does not match modern day Those who received Jesus "as savior" are now children of God. If that's what they had done, they wouldn't have to "become" children of God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Tue Jul 03, 2018 - 15:13:32
What does it mean to "believe"?  As I asked previously, can one believe in God, Jesus Christ and the gospel and yet reject anything they say?  I don't think so.  Can you receive Him or accept Him and not receive and accept what He says? Again, I don't think so.

We are saved by believing the gospel. To put it another way we are saved by believing in Jesus. If we believe the gospel we put our faith in Jesus for salvation. We are not saved by believing everything in the bible which we should. If we had to have perfect doctrine no one would ever be saved. You read that we must be baptized to receive forgiveness. I do get from the scriptures that we have to be baptized for remission. Yes we should believe all that is in the bible. And yes we should believe all that Jesus said.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. NKJV

Now let's look at what Paul told a gentile.

Acts 16:31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. NKJV

Believe on the Lord Jesus and they will be saved. Yes they then were baptized into obedience . But for salvation, forgiveness and justification, they believed on the name of the Lord Jesus.

Another gentile church:

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.  NKJV

Back to the Jews. Did the disciples in the upper room at Pentecost have to be baptized in the name of Jesus for salvation? No. Because they knew what Jesus the messiah was all about. The rest of Judaism had to still come to that knowledge.

The Jews knew that when one was baptized in the name of someone they were being baptized to realize all that the name implies. All the unbelieving Jews still thought that the messiah was going to set up an earthly kingdom and “show” them how to be righteous. In other words they would be earthly rulers still working for their righteousness. Through his sermon Peter told these Jews that Jesus died and was now in heaven. He told them that Jesus was King, Lord  and the Messiah. The only thing that he left out was the most important for mankind. Through Jesus they would have their sins forgiven. He was not telling them they had to be baptized to get sins removed. He was telling them that Jesus' mission and purpose was for the forgiveness of sins for all mankind. When they became a follower of Christ it meant that their sins would be forgiven. Baptism in His name only showed the world that they were followers of Christ. Being a follower of Christ means your sins are forgiven with or without baptism.

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, NKJV

In Peter's second sermon it was not mentioned that they had to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or to get the Spirit. When Cornelius and his household were saved it had nothing to do with their baptism which came later.

By your way of thinking we should not witness to someone who is dying because we can't get them saved until they get baptized. I know people who believe the way you do and they will not do prison ministry because you can't baptize them immediately. There are probably some of your belief that will still witness in such situations so I do not want to say all like believers will not witness in such situations. But I can see that it would deter some from such endeavors.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 03, 2018 - 20:21:52
19,
Quote
We are saved by believing the gospel. To put it another way we are saved by believing in Jesus. If we believe the gospel we put our faith in Jesus for salvation. We are not saved by believing everything in the bible which we should. If we had to have perfect doctrine no one would ever be saved. You read that we must be baptized to receive forgiveness. I do get from the scriptures that we have to be baptized for remission. Yes we should believe all that is in the bible. And yes we should believe all that Jesus said.
On the same page. Remission from what though? Acts 2:38 does it stop at the word remission.

Quote
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. NKJV
Ok, thank you.

Quote
Now let's look at what Paul told a gentile.
Acts 16:31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. NKJV

Believe on the Lord Jesus and they will be saved. Yes they then were baptized into obedience . But for salvation, forgiveness and justification, they believed on the name of the Lord Jesus.
first, I commend you tremendously as you are the first Evangelical I've seen here who does not stop quoting the passage at verse 31. Kudos! I very much appreciate that. Secondly, when they said believe on the Lord Jesus, that was only there introductory statement. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes from hearing the message, so they begin with believe on the Lord Jesus and spoke the rest of the word of the Lord to him. Then they had something to believe. And it says he rejoiced because he and his family had come to believe on the Lord, after they were baptized. Their belief was all inclusive of everything they had gone through that night, including their baptism. But either way, you can't make any conclusion statements without knowing specifically what was taught to them, and what was said to them about baptism, since they were baptized. You certainly cannot say they were baptized into obedience, you are adding that to the passage.
About to be baptized into obedience, or as an act of obedience has its origin here:
The Faith and Practise of Thirty Congregations Gathered According to the Primitive Pattern

Published (in love) by consent of two from each Congregation, appointed for that purpose.

London, Printed by J. M. for Will. Larnar, at the Blackmore neer Fleet-bridge, 1651.


49. That when Baptisme is made known, or any other Action of obedience, then for men to refuse it, they are said to reject the counsel of God against themselves; Luk. 7. 30.

The whole vocabulary of baptism and obedience did not exist prior to this event.

Quote
Another gentile church:

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.  NKJV
Ephesus, as you mentioned,  Acts 19:1-3, Paul included baptism in Jesus's name in his definition of belief.
Acts 19:1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples [2] and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
 They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” [3] So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John's baptism,” they replied.


If they believed, then they should have already been baptized. You can't rule out in the same city in Ephesians 1:13, that Paul did it not also include baptism when you said believed. You need to look elsewhere.

Quote
Back to the Jews. Did the disciples in the upper room at Pentecost have to be baptized in the name of Jesus for salvation? No. Because they knew what Jesus the messiah was all about. The rest of Judaism had to still come to that knowledge.
Luke 5:24 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”

Jesus had that authority on earth to override the animal sacrifice requirement. But the apostles themselves made it clear, of what the expectations were henceforth
Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off---for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Quote
The Jews knew that when one was baptized in the name of someone they were being baptized to realize all that the name implies. All the unbelieving Jews still thought that the messiah was going to set up an earthly kingdom and “show” them how to be righteous. In other words they would be earthly rulers still working for their righteousness. Through his sermon Peter told these Jews that Jesus died and was now in heaven. He told them that Jesus was King, Lord  and the Messiah. The only thing that he left out was the most important for mankind. Through Jesus they would have their sins forgiven.
Agreed.

Quote
He was not telling them they had to be baptized to get sins removed. He was telling them that Jesus' mission and purpose was for the forgiveness of sins for all mankind. When they became a follower of Christ it meant that their sins would be forgiven. Baptism in His name only showed the world that they were followers of Christ. Being a follower of Christ means your sins are forgiven with or without baptism.
This would be correct except for the fact that Peter didn't say any of this. Peter did say
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

and that's what he meant.

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, NKJV

Bear in mind, they were arrested before they finished Acts 4:1, you can't rule out from this event.

Quote
In Peter's second sermon it was not mentioned that they had to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or to get the Spirit. When Cornelius and his household were saved it had nothing to do with their baptism which came later.
As with the Philippian jailer, the purpose of their baptism in water in Jesus's name was not recorded. But neither does the passage mention when they were saved. Evangelicals speak of when the Holy Spirit fell upon them as synonymous with them being saved. You also said "When Cornelius and his household were saved...", adding to the passage that didn't even say "saved". It would strain credulity however that this same Peter see that they would be baptized for a different reason than the one he stated in Acts 2:38-39, especially since he included Acts 2:39 The promise is for you and your children for ALL who are far off —for ALL whom the Lord our God will call.”
Cornelius and company are included in ALL.
I don't see Peter saying. "Jews, you get baptized for this purpose and Cornelius & company, you get baptized for that purpose."

Quote
By your way of thinking we should not witness to someone who is dying because we can't get them saved until they get baptized. I know people who believe the way you do and they will not do prison ministry because you can't baptize them immediately. There are probably some of your belief that will still witness in such situations so I do not want to say all like believers will not witness in such situations. But I can see that it would deter some from such endeavors.
That's a fair assessment. That would be more of an issue of willingness and asking God for a way  than belief and doctrine. I know someone who while in jail baptized a fellow inmate. And the Philippian jailer didn't get baptized immediately, although fairly quickly.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 07:25:18
We are saved by believing the gospel. To put it another way we are saved by believing in Jesus. If we believe the gospel we put our faith in Jesus for salvation. We are not saved by believing everything in the bible which we should. If we had to have perfect doctrine no one would ever be saved. You read that we must be baptized to receive forgiveness. I do get from the scriptures that we have to be baptized for remission. Yes we should believe all that is in the bible. And yes we should believe all that Jesus said.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. NKJV

Now let's look at what Paul told a gentile.

Acts 16:31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. NKJV

Believe on the Lord Jesus and they will be saved. Yes they then were baptized into obedience . But for salvation, forgiveness and justification, they believed on the name of the Lord Jesus.

Another gentile church:

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.  NKJV

Back to the Jews. Did the disciples in the upper room at Pentecost have to be baptized in the name of Jesus for salvation? No. Because they knew what Jesus the messiah was all about. The rest of Judaism had to still come to that knowledge.

The Jews knew that when one was baptized in the name of someone they were being baptized to realize all that the name implies. All the unbelieving Jews still thought that the messiah was going to set up an earthly kingdom and “show” them how to be righteous. In other words they would be earthly rulers still working for their righteousness. Through his sermon Peter told these Jews that Jesus died and was now in heaven. He told them that Jesus was King, Lord  and the Messiah. The only thing that he left out was the most important for mankind. Through Jesus they would have their sins forgiven. He was not telling them they had to be baptized to get sins removed. He was telling them that Jesus' mission and purpose was for the forgiveness of sins for all mankind. When they became a follower of Christ it meant that their sins would be forgiven. Baptism in His name only showed the world that they were followers of Christ. Being a follower of Christ means your sins are forgiven with or without baptism.

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, NKJV

In Peter's second sermon it was not mentioned that they had to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or to get the Spirit. When Cornelius and his household were saved it had nothing to do with their baptism which came later.

By your way of thinking we should not witness to someone who is dying because we can't get them saved until they get baptized. I know people who believe the way you do and they will not do prison ministry because you can't baptize them immediately. There are probably some of your belief that will still witness in such situations so I do not want to say all like believers will not witness in such situations. But I can see that it would deter some from such endeavors.

I do not see your answer to the disciples getting baptized.

So when did the people in the upper chamber on Pentecost get baptized in the name of Jesus? If water baptism was a requirement for the forgiveness of sins God would certainly show His church an example to follow by the Apostles water baptism.

It would have had to have been prior to Pentecost and after Jesus' death. John recorded an event when he and other disciples had breakfast with Jesus by the sea.That would have been a perfect time for Jesus to say let's baptize you in my name for the remission of sins.

Acts 1:21 "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." NKJV

Another perfect time to teach the church that water baptism in Jesus' name was a requirement. This is the last time prior to the apostles having the Spirit come upon them. The only requirement named was to be to be a companion all the time of Jesus' ministry. This has to far less important than to have had your sins forgiven. If God recorded this He certainly would have recorded the water baptism for remission of sins. When did the Apostles get water Baptism to be forgiven?

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 08:23:11
19,
My answer was
Quote
Back to the Jews. Did the disciples in the upper room at Pentecost have to be baptized in the name of Jesus for salvation? No. Because they knew what Jesus the messiah was all about. The rest of Judaism had to still come to that knowledge.
Luke 5:24 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”

Jesus had that authority on earth to override the animal sacrifice requirement. But the apostles themselves made it clear, of what the expectations were henceforth
Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off---for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 08:24:10
Another perfect time to teach the church that water baptism in Jesus' name was a requirement. This is the last time prior to the apostles having the Spirit come upon them. The only requirement named was to be to be a companion all the time of Jesus' ministry. This has to far less important than to have had your sins forgiven. If God recorded this He certainly would have recorded the water baptism for remission of sins. When did the Apostles get water Baptism to be forgiven?

John 4:1  Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
John 4:2  (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),


It is hard to believe that his disciples [apostles] were baptizing and had not themselves been baptized.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 16:41:48
19,
My answer wasLuke 5:24 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”

Jesus had that authority on earth to override the animal sacrifice requirement. But the apostles themselves made it clear, of what the expectations were henceforth
Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off---for all whom the Lord our God will call.”


Mark 2:10  But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" NKJV

Power on earth to forgive sins. They were all still under the old covenant. Any new sins committed had
to be covered.  Yes while Jesus was on earth He could forgive sins. And He could forgive all sins committed up to that time. Until He died and the new covenant had started He could only cover sins till He died. T

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." NKJV

Then according to you one had to be baptized in the name of Jesus to have sins forgiven. Then Once one is in Him all sins are covered. Until after Jesus died the old was in force.

John 4:1 Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John  2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),  NKJV

4WD

His disciples were baptizing under the authority of John's baptism. Once again the OT rules apply. Only in the NT are sins covered in Jesus.

I ask again when were the apostles water baptized in the name of Jesus?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 17:35:33
19,
It doesn't say and you know it doesn't say. But we know they were inducted. And we know whatever that situation was, it didn't continue, as seen at Pentecost. Even with the next apostle chosen after Pentecost, Saul, baptism was still in effect. There was a turning point.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 17:46:51
4WD

His disciples were baptizing under the authority of John's baptism. Once again the OT rules apply. Only in the NT are sins covered in Jesus.
That is probably true.  But you asked
When did the Apostles get water Baptism to be forgiven?
John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).
Quote from: 19
I ask again when were the apostles water baptized in the name of Jesus?
We are not told specifically that they were baptized in the name of Jesus [or with John's baptism either for that matter].  Again, however, since we are not told that they weren't, we can assume that they were.  On the other hand, some claim John 20:22 accounts for them receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus receiving forgiveness of sins in John's baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit by direct gift from Jesus personally is the equivalent of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In any event, I think the question of baptism for the apostles is moot, an answer to which may satisfy the curiosity of some, but is of little consequence to the whole issue of baptism.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 17:50:55
4WD,
Quote
In any event, I think the question of baptism for the apostles is moot, an answer to which may satisfy the curiosity of some, but is of little consequence to the whole issue of baptism.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 18:57:58
That is probably true.  But you asked John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). We are not told specifically that they were baptized in the name of Jesus [or with John's baptism either for that matter].  Again, however, since we are not told that they weren't, we can assume that they were.  On the other hand, some claim John 20:22 accounts for them receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus receiving forgiveness of sins in John's baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit by direct gift from Jesus personally is the equivalent of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In any event, I think the question of baptism for the apostles is moot, an answer to which may satisfy the curiosity of some, but is of little consequence to the whole issue of baptism.

I believe that your saying one's sins are only forgiven under NT rules when water baptism in the name of Jesus occurs. OT rules applied until Jesus died.The NT starts at the death of Jesus Jesus. Everyone from that point on
only had sins forgiven under NT rules. Therefore, it is not a moot point when the apostles were baptized. At that point sins are only forgiven under NT rules.

Now you cited Jn 20:22 and said "some claim" , are you saying that is when the Spirit was given to the apostles?
If you are then your saying that one can be forgiven without water baptism.

I just thought of something. When Jesus died He asked the Father to forgive all the Jews. So by my way of thinking the apostles started with a new slate. But since they were still ashamed of being identified with Jesus
from that point they had to have been water baptized.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 20:11:41
I believe that your saying one's sins are only forgiven under NT rules when water baptism in the name of Jesus occurs.
  No I am not.
Quote from: 19
....then your saying that one can be forgiven without water baptism.
Jesus personally saved a number of people, most of whom we do not know anything about whether they were water baptized of not.  But that was Jesus, and He is no longer personally here and we don't read of anyone else with the power and authority to do that.  Of course God can save whomever He wants, but I would advise doing as He has said and I don't believe He has said any other way.

The difference between John's baptism and baptism in the name of Jesus is that with the latter comes the gift of the Holy Spirit.  That is apparent in the descriptions of both and in the account given in Acts 19:1-6.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 22:25:48
  No I am not.Jesus personally saved a number of people, most of whom we do not know anything about whether they were water baptized of not.  But that was Jesus, and He is no longer personally here and we don't read of anyone else with the power and authority to do that.  Of course God can save whomever He wants, but I would advise doing as He has said and I don't believe He has said any other way.

The difference between John's baptism and baptism in the name of Jesus is that with the latter comes the gift of the Holy Spirit.  That is apparent in the descriptions of both and in the account given in Acts 19:1-6.

I wish that you wouldn't cut my sentences in half. It makes them say something different. The last sentence in you first paragraph( In bold)  sure makes it sound like only in special circumstances would someone be saved without water baptism.

I am saying that one can be saved without water baptism. It is not a requirement for salvation. However, if I lead someone to Christ I always tell them that God expects them to be baptized as soon as possible. If they do not or cannot get baptized they are still saved.


Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 22:48:48
19,
Quote
The last sentence in you first paragraph( In bold)  sure makes it sound like only in special circumstances would someone be saved without water baptism.
Well of course. Whatever period it was between Jesus's resurrection and Pentecost, it doesn't apply to today, because it ended. Even if there is any special circumstance these days, there's no way to know until you're facing judgment day. What an unwise wager to play. You don't have the authority to tell people to countermand God's word, saying that one can be saved without water baptism, and assure them of salvation if they do, none of us have that authority. That's why 4WD said he would advise doing as God has said and he doesn't believe God has said any other way.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Open Heart on Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 02:49:46
Look, Peter very clearly said to "Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins."  So those two things are requirements for forgiveness.  Are there exceptions?  I think so.  But exceptions are exceptions.  We should NOT be telling Christians that "Well, you should get baptized, but of course you'll still be saved if you don't."
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 06:46:13
Look, Peter very clearly said to "Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins."  So those two things are requirements for forgiveness.  Are there exceptions?  I think so.  But exceptions are exceptions.  We should NOT be telling Christians that "Well, you should get baptized, but of course you'll still be saved if you don't."

Various ministries sponsor  an event. It lasts 1 or 2 days. Most witness there travel to get to these events. When we lead someone to Christ we get all contact information about those who confess Christ. We give all that information  to the sponsoring ministry and they do the follow up mentoring and baptism.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 07:05:49
I am saying that one can be saved without water baptism. It is not a requirement for salvation. However, if I lead someone to Christ I always tell them that God expects them to be baptized as soon as possible. If they do not or cannot get baptized they are still saved.
Yes 19, it is apparent that is what you are saying.  The problem with that is the Bible does not ever say that.  You say that; the Bible doesn't. I would suggest that everyone ignore what you are saying about it and go with what the Bible says.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 07:26:54
Yes 19, it is apparent that is what you are saying.  The problem with that is the Bible does not ever say that.  You say that; the Bible doesn't. I would suggest that everyone ignore what you are saying about it and go with what the Bible says.

Gen 17:9 , Ex 4:25, Josh 5:6-7.

All speak to the fact that God requires one obey the requirements of the covenant immediately or in the case in Joshua prior to entering the promised land. According to those who say water baptism in Jesus' name is a requirement for the new covenant this has to be done prior to entering into the covenant. Jesus did have the authority to forgive sins as He walked the earth during the old covenant time prior to His death. When he died , blood was shed, and the new covenant was established all in the new covenant people  had to meet the conditions. Abraham, even though he was righteous, had to submit to circumcision. Since Abraham had to be circumcised the rule has been set. All those in the upper room had to meet all the requirements of the NT. 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 ask: when were the Apostles water baptized in the name of Jesus.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 07:50:53
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 08:18:59
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 on Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 10:31:33
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 11:44:09
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 19 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.

 ::frustrated::
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sat Jul 07, 2018 - 11:56:58
4WD,This sounds pretty obnoxious and rude. I think it was over the top.
OK
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 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.

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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 06:46:11
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;
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 07:37:39
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
,
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 08:23:42
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 10:16:12
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 10:25:27
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. ???

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 12:57:41
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 13:23:03
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.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 13:25:09
I agree Soterion.

Then my Reply #55 goes to you as well.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 15:22:10
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 12:11:15
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 12:49:35
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."
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 14:05:12
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:05:09
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:21:43
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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:38:41
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?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:48:15
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,
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh 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.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD 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?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 18:59:45
And my point is that righteousness does not come by the law, rather the truly just live by faith. 

Paul said he kept the law perfectly.  And he also called himself the chief of sinners.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 19:19:04
And my point is that righteousness does not come by the law, rather the truly just live by faith. 

Paul said he kept the law perfectly.  And he also called himself the chief of sinners.
Perfectly??  I couldn't find that reference.  Do you have it?

However, I am aware of Paul's admission of sinning,

Rom 7:8  But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
Rom 7:9  I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
Rom 7:10  and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
Rom 7:11  for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.


So obviously it would seem that he did not keep the law perfectly.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 19:22:35
Acts 22:3 is what I'm thinking of, but perhaps I'm misremembering the claim slightly:

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Reformer on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 23:42:31
   "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."4WD.
____

   Right on target, brother! Couldn't have expressed it better. As Leroy Garrett used to say, "Soldier on."

Buff
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 00:41:31
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 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."


To say that John preached water baptism or baptism with water is changing and perverting scriptures. This may be your wisdom and teaching (4WDism?), but definitely not of scriptures. For what scriptures clearly says is that John preached a baptism of repentance.

You again asked "what do both of those verses say was the purpose of the baptism of repentance?"

So again I cite:

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.

It is not the baptism or the immersion with water that is connected to the remission of sins, but repentance. This is clear even from the OT times. There had been many baptisms and washings in the OT times, but none was ever considered  and connected to the remission or forgiveness of sins. It is always repentance that is connected to the forgiveness of sins. We should not mistake repentance with the forgiveness of sins. The two are not the same.

And even today, the "Christian" baptism with water remains to be the baptism of repentance that John and the apostles performed on each repentant sinner who comes to faith in God and Christ. This baptism does not take away our sins. Rather, through it, that is, by the baptism of repentance, we step right into and are brought into the grace and mercy of God in Christ and out from His wrath.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 00:44:13
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.


A baptism of repentance means a baptism characterized by repentance. When people came to John for baptism, they were saying by coming that they had repented of their sins.

Did John by baptizing them with water had their sins forgiven?

Now, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the HS. While John baptizes those who come to him in repentance, with water, he points to the Messiah and speaks of yet another baptism, that is, baptism with the HS to be done by the Messiah. By this, John is telling them they are to go to the Messiah when He comes and be baptized with the HS.

If the baptism with water had the sins of one be forgiven, what do you say then is baptism with the HS for? Obviously, baptism with water is not the end, nor is that which purifies and cleanses the repentant one of his sins.  When the scriptures says that John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission or forgiveness of sins, it is not meant to say that one's sins are forgiven by being baptized with water. This is obvious in that, the Messiah, the lamb of God, the sacrifice for sin, has yet to be offered up, for the forgiveness of sins.

What then is the baptism of John for? One needs only to know what is the reason why John was sent, that is, to prepare the way of the Lord. So, what John had done, his preaching, teaching, and baptizing, are all in this sense preparatory.

Baptism with water signifies one's repentance unto faith in God and Christ. It is not the baptism or the immersion with water that is connected to the remission of sins, but repentance. This is clear even from the OT times. There had been many baptisms and washings in the OT times, but none was ever considered  and connected to the remission or forgiveness of sins. It is always repentance that is connected to the forgiveness of sins. We should not mistake repentance with the forgiveness of sins. The two are not the same.

And even today, the "Christian" baptism with water remains to be the baptism of repentance that John and the apostles performed on each repentant sinner who comes to faith in God and Christ. This baptism does not take away our sins. Rather, through it, that is, by the baptism of repentance, we step right into and are brought into the grace and mercy of God in Christ and out from His wrath.
 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 01:17:11
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.


Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, the call is to repent, as Peter, like John the baptist, even Jesus, preached "Repent!" Now, Peter continued saying "let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins". This is the act of repentance, obviously connected to what Peter had just said, that is, "Repent". This baptism is the baptism of repentance. 

Now, baptism with water signifies one's repentance unto faith in God and Christ. The "Christian" baptism with water remains to be the baptism of repentance that John and the apostles performed on each repentant sinner who comes to faith in God and Christ. This baptism does not take away our sins. Rather, through it, that is, by the baptism of repentance, we step right into and are brought into the grace and mercy of God in Christ and out from His wrath. Submitting oneself to be baptized with water, is one's response to God's call for repentance.

Peter preached:

Acts 3: 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord

We can understand that, repentance towards God and Christ is necessary, not really baptism with water, in connection to the forgiveness of one's sins.

That is not to say that baptism with water becomes unimportant. But that, one can have forgiveness of sins upon his repentance towards God and Christ, and not only when he is water baptized.   
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: RB on Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 04:32:01
Quote from: Paul
Romans 3:21-28~"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
"The righteousness of God"~ This is one of, if not, the most important expressions in the Scriptures, especially so in the NT. It frequently occurs both in the Old Testament and the New; it stands connected with the argument of the whole of the first five chapters of this Epistle, and signifies that fulfillment of the law which God has provided, by the imputation of which sinners are made righteous........... born again.

Although perfectly clear in itself, its meaning has been involved in much obscurity by the learned labors of some who know not the truth, and by the perversions of others by whom it has been greatly corrupted. By many, it has been misunderstood and has in general been very slightly noticed even by those whose views on the subject are correct and scriptural~to my surprise and a little confused as to why.  To consider its real signification is the more necessary, as it does not appear always to receive that attention from Christians which its importance demands.

When the question is put, why is the Gospel the power of God unto salvation? how few give the clear and unfaltering answer of Paul..... Because therein is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD revealed when it is understood and preached according to Paul's teachings.

Before attending to the true import of this phrase, and see the All-Sufficiency of Jesus Christ~ it is proper to advert to some of the significations erroneously attached to it. Of these, I shall select only a few examples from many that might be furnished.

Later....RB
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 07:14:01
So Michael, you DO agree with us that the statement that baptism has nothing to do with salvation is patently ludicrous?

Jesus said, he that believe and is baptized shall be saved. He didn’t mention repentance. In John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism, baptism was critical. It wasn’t an after thought. At the same time with both, baptism without repentance is just getting wet, as I hope we all can agree.

And if people were immediately baptized as the Biblical pattern shows, would we even be having these discussions? I submit orobably not.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 07:35:25
So Michael, you DO agree with us that the statement that baptism has nothing to do with salvation is patently ludicrous?

Jesus said, he that believe and is baptized shall be saved. He didn’t mention repentance. In John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism, baptism was critical. It wasn’t an after thought. At the same time with both, baptism without repentance is just getting wet, as I hope we all can agree.

And if people were immediately baptized as the Biblical pattern shows, would we even be having these discussions? I submit orobably not.


Not really sir.

Yes Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

If you'll give a little analysis of the statement, perhaps, you'll see repentance there.

If we take baptism as baptism per se, that is, the immersion with water, consider this. While Jesus said "and is baptized", by what He said next clearly goes pass baptism, but zeros in on believing regarding not being condemned. We can see then what makes that of baptism, nothing to do with not being condemned, that is, salvation. But then, the phrase "believes and is baptized" certainly connects the two. The only thing that we know that which is necessarily connected to faith or believing is repentance. This leads me to take baptism there as referring to the baptism of repentance. Not so much that it refers to the immersion with water, but the repentance of the person unto faith in God and Christ.

And I agree, baptism without repentance is just getting wet.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 07:44:17
I don’t believe Jesus left out repentance because the rest of the Bible applies. You cannot take a statment that does not include repentance with the knowledge of what the rest of the Bible says. This is my whole hearburn with theae arguements. Oeople take the believe and be saved verses WITHOUT considering what the Bible says elsewhere. The Bible should be taken cumulatively or collectively.

Mark 16:16 ONLy addresses two things, who is saved and whonis condemned. An unbeliever is not capable of a scriptural baptism, therefore his unbelief condemns him. If one believes and is baptized, would he not have confessed with his lips and would he not have repented prior to baptism?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 07:54:49
I don’t believe Jesus left out repentance because the respt of the Bible applies. You cannot take a statment that does not include repentance with the knowledge of what the rest of the Bible says. This is my whole hearburn with theae arguements. Oeople take the believe and be saved verses WITHOUT considering what the Bible says elsewhere. The Bible should be taken cumulatively or collectively.

Mark 16:16 ONLy addresses two things, who is saved and whonis condemned. An unbeliever is not capable of a scriptural baptism, therefore his unbelief condemns him. If one believes and is baptized, would he not have confessed with his lips and would he not have repented prior to baptism?


"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Please tell me what you understand of the phrase "but he who does not believe will be condemned", of course, in connection and in relation to the first statement. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 09:09:49
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Please tell me what you understand of the phrase "but he who does not believe will be condemned", of course, in connection and in relation to the first statement.
I am not Jaime, but I think it means "he who does not believe will be condemned".  That seems pretty clear.  It really doesn't need any explanation beyond that.  It doesn't even need the first part of the sentence to be true.  The truth of the second part of that sentence does not depend upon the first part.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 09:19:01

Mark 16:16 ONLy addresses two things, who is saved and whonis condemned. An unbeliever is not capable of a scriptural baptism, therefore his unbelief condemns him.


Exactly.

If a person does not believe, then baptism, as Christ commanded it, will not follow. The negative regarding baptism does not have to be stated in the second half of the passage.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 10:36:56
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 07:54:49
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Please tell me what you understand of the phrase "but he who does not believe will be condemned", of course, in connection and in relation to the first statement.

I am not Jaime, but I think it means "he who does not believe will be condemned".  That seems pretty clear.  It really doesn't need any explanation beyond that.  It doesn't even need the first part of the sentence to be true.  The truth of the second part of that sentence does not depend upon the first part.

Still considering Mk.16:16:

1. If one is baptized, yet do not believe, will he be saved?
2. If one believes, yet was not yet baptized, is he saved?

You say, "The truth of the second part of that sentence does not depend upon the first" and that even while the second part is part of a whole which obviously is connected to the first part. 

How about this one sir, does this need any explanation?

Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Why was not baptism included here? Does this contradict what is said in Mark 16:16?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 10:56:30
Quote
Quote from: Jaime on Today at 07:44:17

Mark 16:16 ONLy addresses two things, who is saved and whonis condemned. An unbeliever is not capable of a scriptural baptism, therefore his unbelief condemns him.
Exactly.

If a person does not believe, then baptism, as Christ commanded it, will not follow. The negative regarding baptism does not have to be stated in the second half of the passage.


Scriptural baptism? Where is that coming from?

Apparently you want to believe that for one to be saved, he must not only believe but must be baptized. If that were the case, then we would expect that the two will always be mentioned whenever the matter of getting saved is spoken of. And that also, when either of the two is not done by one, he will be condemned. Yet clearly, even in Mk. 16:16, that is not the case.

Consider this:

Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Why was baptism not part of the answer in v. 31 to the question in v.30?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:07:13
WhT the heck do you mean, where is scriptural baptism coming from? From the Bible of course. Michael, the whoe NT applies cumulatively. Baptism or repencece etc doesn’t have to be enumerated in every salvation verse. A verse that says believe and be saved is NOT contrary to other Bible verses speaking about salvation. Belief applies, repentance applies, confessing with one’s lips applies, and yes baptism applies, because parts of the Bible say it does.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:23:48
WhT the heck do you mean, where is scriptural baptism coming from? From the Bible of course. Michael, the whoe NT applies cumulatively. Baptism or repencece etc doesn’t have to be enumerated in every salvation verse.

Perhaps it's because it was my first time to hear the term. I haven't heard that from scriptures. Does that refer to the baptism of repentance or baptism with water or baptism with the HS?

You said "Baptism or repencece etc doesn’t have to be enumerated in every salvation verse."

It's not about being enumerated or not Jaime. It's about truth being clear. If the truth is that for one to be saved, he must not only believe but must be baptized, then it must be that the two will always be mentioned whenever the matter of getting saved is spoken of. And that also, when either of the two is not done by one, he will be condemned. Yet clearly, even in Mk. 16:16, that is not the case.

Consider this:

Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Why was baptism not part of the answer in v. 31 to the question in v.30?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:37:00
Quote
Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Still can't honor the context:

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said,
        Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
        and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Belief or Faith comes by HEARING:

Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the WORD of the Lord,
        and to all that were in his house.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night,
       and washed their stripes;
       and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

These people DO repentance and Baptism!

Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house,
      he set meat before them, and rejoiced,
      BELIEVING in God with all his house.

They were not BELIEVERS until they had OBEYED the gospel.

Rom. 10:16 But they have not all OBEYED the gospel.
       For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath BELIEVED our report?

God BREATHED into Isaiah with the Spirit OF Christ and PREACHED THE GOSPEL. When the eunuch heard this gospel he WANTED to be baptized.


Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:55:27
Exactly.

If a person does not believe, then baptism, as Christ commanded it, will not follow. The negative regarding baptism does not have to be stated in the second half of the passage.



Scriptural baptism? Where is that coming from?


To me, immersion is a God designed and required response to the gospel unto the forgiveness of sins. Some people believe in sprinkling or pouring, and some believe that immersion follows the forgiveness of sins, thus giving it a purpose not found in scripture.

Quote

Apparently you want to believe that for one to be saved, he must not only believe but must be baptized. If that were the case, then we would expect that the two will always be mentioned whenever the matter of getting saved is spoken of. And that also, when either of the two is not done by one, he will be condemned. Yet clearly, even in Mk. 16:16, that is not the case.


Clearly? If it was so clear, there would be no debate.

Okay, so your position is that everything that must actually be "done" by the candidate for salvation must be mentioned in every context about salvation, right?

Repentance is almost universally accepted as necessary for salvation, but it is not always mentioned, so you can throw it out as unnecessary, going by your standard. It is not mentioned, for example, in Mark 16:15-16 or Romans 10:9-10.

Faith is almost universally accepted as necessary for salvation, but it is not always mentioned, so you can throw it out as unnecessary, going by your standard. It is not mentioned, for example, in Titus 3:4-7.

Confession of Jesus is almost universally accepted as necessary for salvation, but it is not always mentioned, so you can throw it out as unnecessary, going by your standard. It is not mentioned in most contexts.

On God's part, grace is almost universally accepted as necessary for salvation, but it is not always mentioned, so you can throw it out as unnecessary, going by your standard. It is not mentioned, for example, in Mark 16:15-16 and Romans 10:9-10.

The fact of the matter is, nothing is mentioned in every passage or context. We have to learn how to read the scriptures holistically, as well as contextually, and understand the message of salvation as a whole. We have to read all of these contexts and learn what God has done, and still does for us for our salvation, and what He requires of us to receive that grace.

Quote

Consider this:

Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Why was baptism not part of the answer in v. 31 to the question in v.30?

Verse 31 was just an introduction in the instruction given to the jailer. The next verse tells us that the word of the Lord was taught to him and to his household. Then the jailer and house were immediately baptized.

Acts 16:31-34.
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 12:39:03
Not so Michael. A truth in the Bible is truth no matter if it’s only mentioned once. Salvation requires a study of the word, it is not containined in one verse. Michael, an unscriptural baptism would not be jumping in some water with no belief, unrepentance in your heart and expecting salvation to occur because you got wet. There are people that think folks like us believe the water is magic. It isn’t, it is the mode in which God chose. And NO every mention of salvation would not have to include every aspect of our faith response. Why would it if someone is even a rudimentary student of the NT?

If scripture is not supposed to be taken cumulatively, none of it makes sense. It’s a story, a narrative of God’s redemptive work from Genesis to Revelation. The very last thing it is is a repository of stand alone prooftexts. Good grief this is elementary Michael.

In the first century, believing begat repentance, confessing Christ with your lips and immediate baptism, bing bang boom. It was all ONE faith response. NOT erroneously segmented like today where waiting years to be baptised happens. It wouldn’t have happened in the first century.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 14:04:40

Quote
Now, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the HS. While John baptizes those who come to him in repentance, with water, he points to the Messiah and speaks of yet another baptism, that is, baptism with the HS to be done by the Messiah. By this, John is telling them they are to go to the Messiah when He comes and be baptized with the HS.
Where do we see this being fulfilled? where do we see example of them being baptized with the HS? May I suggest Acts 2:38 as being in regards to that reference?
Quote

If the baptism with water had the sins of one be forgiven, what do you say then is baptism with the HS for?
Take these scriptures into consideration.
John 7:37-39 (KJV)
37   In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38  He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Here Jesus is saying that one will get the indwelling spirit but it is not yet given in the baptism of John because Jesus has not yet went to the cross. Then in Acts after the cross we see Acts 2:38 where remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling is both present in the baptism in Christ name. So therefore it is fulfilled what John had said in Mark.

Quote
Baptism with water signifies one's repentance unto faith in God and Christ. It is not the baptism or the immersion with water that is connected to the remission of sins, but repentance.
This seems a little backward to me it seem that repentance is like justification here to be initially sanctified by God through baptism.Yet this one of John like the old law scarifies points to the fulfillment of the baptism in Christ name.

Quote
And even today, the "Christian" baptism with water remains to be the baptism of repentance that John and the apostles performed on each repentant sinner who comes to faith in God and Christ. This baptism does not take away our sins. Rather, through it, that is, by the baptism of repentance, we step right into and are brought into the grace and mercy of God in Christ and out from His wrath.
You will have to show me how you come to this for it is above my understanding what you are saying here.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 16, 2018 - 23:22:43
Michael2012,
Quote
How about this one sir, does this need any explanation?

Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Why was not baptism included here? Does this contradict what is said in Mark 16:16?
It's likely a SEVERE evangelical habit and custom to quote only up until vs. 31 in this passage, where the conversion account actually ends in verse 34 (I checked, the KJV also ends this account in verse 34), where it also says ...he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household. -only after he in his family had believed and were baptized. The telling of the account includes their baptism as part of their having believed, much like Paul's question to those men in Acts 19 included baptism in their belief. And in verse 32 it says that they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to his household, so you know that his few words in verse 31 were only the introduction. Best case scenario, it's benignly neglectful to present the evangelical version of this account ending in vs. 31.

No, the whole story doesn't contradict Mark 16:16.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 08:42:48
Michael2012,
Quote
How about this one sir, does this need any explanation?

Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Why was not baptism included here? Does this contradict what is said in Mark 16:16?
It's likely a SEVERE evangelical habit and custom to quote only up until vs. 31 in this passage, where the conversion account actually ends in verse 34 (I checked, the KJV also ends this account in verse 34), where it also says ...he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household. -only after he in his family had believed and were baptized. The telling of the account includes their baptism as part of their having believed, much like Paul's question to those men in Acts 19 included baptism in their belief. And in verse 32 it says that they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to his household, so you know that his few words in verse 31 were only the introduction. Best case scenario, it's benignly neglectful to present the evangelical version of this account ending in vs. 31.

No, the whole story doesn't contradict Mark 16:16.


I cited the verses just to show what was the question asked and what was the answer given. Looking at the answer, so I asked why was the answer not the same as what others insist is how one is saved per Mk. 16:16, that is, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". That should have been the proper answer to the question isn't it? But that apparently is not what answer was given in Acts 16:31. Why is that? The reason is obvious. This is why we can read in the second part of Mk. 16:16, that he who does not believe will be condemned, that is, will not be saved.

Verses 32ff is not part of the answer of Paul and Silas to the question asked of them. So, that is immaterial to the question. What we have in those verses is a narrative of what Paul and Silas did next. The plain and clear answer to the question is not there in those verses, but is found in v.31, which is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". We need only to read the writings of Paul and see that it is this that Paul went out preaching. If baptism were a requirement for one's salvation, wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to preach that? And wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to baptize?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 08:47:25

Quote
Quote
Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Still can't honor the context:

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said,
        Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
        and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Belief or Faith comes by HEARING:

Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the WORD of the Lord,
        and to all that were in his house.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night,
       and washed their stripes;
       and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

These people DO repentance and Baptism!

Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house,
      he set meat before them, and rejoiced,
      BELIEVING in God with all his house.

They were not BELIEVERS until they had OBEYED the gospel.

Rom. 10:16 But they have not all OBEYED the gospel.
       For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath BELIEVED our report?

God BREATHED into Isaiah with the Spirit OF Christ and PREACHED THE GOSPEL. When the eunuch heard this gospel he WANTED to be baptized.




Not really about the context Kenneth, but about the answer to the question in v.30. Verses 32ff is not part of the answer of Paul and Silas to the question asked of them. So, that is immaterial to the question. What we have in those verses is a narrative of what Paul and Silas did next. The plain and clear answer to the question is not there in those verses, but is found in v.31, which is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". We need only to read the writings of Paul and see that it is this that Paul went out preaching. If baptism were a requirement for one's salvation, wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to preach that? And wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to baptize?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 09:14:37
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 10:56:30
Quote
Exactly.

If a person does not believe, then baptism, as Christ commanded it, will not follow. The negative regarding baptism does not have to be stated in the second half of the passage.

Scriptural baptism? Where is that coming from?

To me, immersion is a God designed and required response to the gospel unto the forgiveness of sins. Some people believe in sprinkling or pouring, and some believe that immersion follows the forgiveness of sins, thus giving it a purpose not found in scripture.

I respect your take on that.

Quote

Apparently you want to believe that for one to be saved, he must not only believe but must be baptized. If that were the case, then we would expect that the two will always be mentioned whenever the matter of getting saved is spoken of. And that also, when either of the two is not done by one, he will be condemned. Yet clearly, even in Mk. 16:16, that is not the case.

Clearly? If it was so clear, there would be no debate.

Okay, so your position is that everything that must actually be "done" by the candidate for salvation must be mentioned in every context about salvation, right?

Repentance is almost universally accepted as necessary for salvation, but it is not always mentioned, so you can throw it out as unnecessary, going by your standard. It is not mentioned, for example, in Mark 16:15-16 or Romans 10:9-10.

Faith is almost universally accepted as necessary for salvation, but it is not always mentioned, so you can throw it out as unnecessary, going by your standard. It is not mentioned, for example, in Titus 3:4-7.

Confession of Jesus is almost universally accepted as necessary for salvation, but it is not always mentioned, so you can throw it out as unnecessary, going by your standard. It is not mentioned in most contexts.

On God's part, grace is almost universally accepted as necessary for salvation, but it is not always mentioned, so you can throw it out as unnecessary, going by your standard. It is not mentioned, for example, in Mark 16:15-16 and Romans 10:9-10.

The fact of the matter is, nothing is mentioned in every passage or context. We have to learn how to read the scriptures holistically, as well as contextually, and understand the message of salvation as a whole. We have to read all of these contexts and learn what God has done, and still does for us for our salvation, and what He requires of us to receive that grace.

It's not that it isn't clear that there is debate on this, but that is a matter of accepting and denying it.

You said "Okay, so your position is that everything that must actually be "done" by the candidate for salvation must be mentioned in every context about salvation, right?"

No sir. That is not my position nor is what I am saying. My point is that, if one must be baptized to be saved, this must be clear in the preaching of the apostles. It would be expected that it is always part of the answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" As such, it would always be part in every preaching of salvation, as believing (in God and Christ) is ever a part of the gospel of salvation. And Christians know that the gospel preached is not about believing and getting baptized, but is about believing in God and in the one whom He sent, Jesus Christ.

Quote
Quote
Consider this:

Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Why was baptism not part of the answer in v. 31 to the question in v.30?
Quote

Verse 31 was just an introduction in the instruction given to the jailer. The next verse tells us that the word of the Lord was taught to him and to his household. Then the jailer and house were immediately baptized.

Acts 16:31-34.
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.

Listen sir to the question and to the answer. Verse 32ff is a narrative of what happened next. It is not part of the answer to the question sir.

If the question were asked of you, what will your answer be? Will it be different from the answer of Paul and Silas?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 09:23:33
Not so Michael. A truth in the Bible is truth no matter if it’s only mentioned once. Salvation requires a study of the word, it is not containined in one verse. Michael, an unscriptural baptism would not be jumping in some water with no belief, unrepentance in your heart and expecting salvation to occur because you got wet. There are people that think folks like us believe the water is magic. It isn’t, it is the mode in which God chose. And NO every mention of salvation would not have to include every aspect of our faith response. Why would it if someone is even a rudimentary student of the NT?

If scripture is not supposed to be taken cumulatively, none of it makes sense. It’s a story, a narrative of God’s redemptive work from Genesis to Revelation. The very last thing it is is a repository of stand alone prooftexts. Good grief this is elementary Michael.

In the first century, believing begat repentance, confessing Christ with your lips and immediate baptism, bing bang boom. It was all ONE faith response. NOT erroneously segmented like today where waiting years to be baptised happens. It wouldn’t have happened in the first century.

Thank you. Now I know what you meant by "unscriptural baptism".

You say here "And NO every mention of salvation would not have to include every aspect of our faith response. "

By what you say there, it is faith, that is believing. I understand then that getting baptized is only one of the "faith response".

This then, when asked of the question, as did the jailer to Paul and Silas, "what must I do to be saved?", leads to the answer that Paul and Silas gave, that is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 10:46:26
And they taught him WHAT to believe and immediately baptized him. Why, because he didn’t know what to believe. Baptism is part of the scriptural faith response if we take the NT as a whole rather than relying on a “prooftext” sentence. Everyone here acknowledges belief is the main thing. Without belief we are condemned as the scripture points out.

Naaman wanted an easy button to be healed. Why was it to be done in the Jordan river of all rivers and why 7 times? He found out because God SAID SO. It wasn’t the water in the Jordan or the number of times to dip. The water of the Jordan has no healing powers on the 1st dip or the 7th. God chose the mode, and He did the healing.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 11:00:56
And they taught him WHAT to believe and immediately baptized him. Why, because he didn’t know what to believe. Baptism is part of the scriptural faith response if we take the NT as a whole rather than relying on a “prooftext” sentence. Everyone here acknowledges belief is the main thing. Without belief we are condemned as the scripture points out.

Naaman wanted an easy button to be healed. Why was it to be done in the Jordan river of all rivers and why 7 times? He found out because God SAID SO. It wasn’t the water in the Jordan or the number of times to dip. The water of the Jordan has no healing powers on the 1st dip or the 7th. God chose the mode.
::thumbup:: ::thumbup::

Right ON Jaime ! ! !
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 12:11:16
Quote
We need only to read the writings of Paul and see that it is this that Paul went out preaching. If baptism were a requirement for one's salvation, wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to preach that? And wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to baptize?

Paul DID baptize without violating Jesus' sending mission. If you wanted to be taught the secrets OF Peter the Tentmaker, you would be baptized BY the Master Teacher and be given a NEW NAME and become part of the family BEFORE He would teach you any trade secrets.  The people HAD been baptized but were divided into sects taught by the baptizer.

We are baptized IN THE NAME of Jesus Christ so that; in later times, people baptized into THREE "NAMES" and consistently baptized or sprinked THREE TIMES.

1Cor. 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the NAME of our Lord Jesus Christ,
        that ye all SPEAK the same thing,
        and that there be no DIVISION among you;
        but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same MIND and in the same JUDGMENT.

The TEACHING from Paul's letter to the ROMANS was that they "Use one mind and one mouth to speak that which is written for our learning" or "Scripture for our Comfort" as the PARAKLETE function.

1Cor. 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren,
        by them which are of the house of Chloe,
        that there are CONTENTIONS among you.
1Cor. 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith,
        I am of Paul;
        and I of Apollos;
        and I of Cephas;
        and I of Christ.
       
        [Apollos taught the baptism of John: was corrected by Aquilla and Priscilla. 12 others were baptized in the Name of Jesus which gave one A holy spirit. Paul ordained those who spoke in tongues and able to teach by inspiration)]

1Cor. 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul CRUCIFIED for you?
        or were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul?
1Cor. 1:14  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Cor. 1:15 LEST any should say that I had baptized IN MINE OWN NAME.
1Cor. 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas:
        besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

1Cor. 1:17 For Christ sent ME not to baptize,
        but to preach the gospel: NOT with wisdom of WORDS,
        LEST the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

In Romans 6 Paul could teach them to be baptized as a FORM of the death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ.
Christ was put to dean IN THE FLESH but made ALIVE in the Spirit.

A mortal can DIP a person into water but they have nothing to do with how the BLOOD of Jesus

Heb. 10:22 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.

Paul could not purify their spirit and neither could others who often boast about how many THEY have baptized.

Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness,
        and the first begotten of the dead,
        and the prince of the kings of the earth.
        Unto him that loved us,
        and WASHED us from our sins in his own blood,

g3068. louo, loo´-o; a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): — wash.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Elioenai on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 04:16:02
Let filthy Sinners be filthy Sinners and pure Righteous be pure Righteous!


Psalm 14:4-5 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

4 Have all working iniquity not known? Those consuming my people have eaten bread, Jehovah they have not called.

5 There they have feared a fear, For God [is] in the generation of the righteous.





Revelation 22:11 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

11 he who is unrighteous -- let him be unrighteous still, and he who is filthy -- let him be filthy still, and he who is righteous -- let him be declared righteous still, and he who is sanctified -- let him be sanctified still:

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 09:34:08
And they taught him WHAT to believe and immediately baptized him. Why, because he didn’t know what to believe. Baptism is part of the scriptural faith response if we take the NT as a whole rather than relying on a “prooftext” sentence. Everyone here acknowledges belief is the main thing. Without belief we are condemned as the scripture points out.

Naaman wanted an easy button to be healed. Why was it to be done in the Jordan river of all rivers and why 7 times? He found out because God SAID SO. It wasn’t the water in the Jordan or the number of times to dip. The water of the Jordan has no healing powers on the 1st dip or the 7th. God chose the mode, and He did the healing.


Yes, they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he believed the word of the Lord. He believed in God. And yes we are told, he was immediately baptized.

Yes getting baptized may well be a faith response, as is every act of obedience to the word of the Lord.

That's right, repenting not, towards faith in God leaves one condemned. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Not obedience, not baptism, not good works, not sacrifice, if done not from faith. For whatever is done that is not from faith is sin. 

A clarification: Are you saying that baptism with water is a chosen mode of God? Chosen mode of what?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 09:40:45
Jaime,

If the question asked of Paul and Silas by the the jailer were asked of you, what will your answer be? Will it be different from the answer of Paul and Silas?

The jailer's question is "Sir, what must I do to be saved?"

4WD,

How about you?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 10:02:07
Mochael, baptism, as evidenced in scripture is God’s mode of conveying the indwelling Spirit and remission of sin, an answer of a appeal to God for a clean conscience. He does the Spiritual lifting or work in baptism, man only drops his clinched fiat of resistance and passively submits. Baptism is NOT a work by man that earns or merits anything. Just like Naaman did not earn or merit his healing but he had to submit to God’s chosen mode.

As to the question that Paul and Silas answered, “what must I do to be saved?” Absolutely Ibagree with their answer. Belief is paramount, but it doesn’t negated other inspired scripe describing our faith response in baptism, confessing and repentance. It’s like if someone asks me what must I do to get from Midlland? I would be telling them the absolute truth by saying, get in your car and drive north, but it may not include every single tidbit of information they would need but implied without the paramount part of getting in the car and driving north, you ain’t gonna get there.


Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 10:11:11
Jaime,

If the question asked of Paul and Silas by the the jailer were asked of you, what will your answer be? Will it be different from the answer of Paul and Silas?

The jailer's question is "Sir, what must I do to be saved?"

4WD,

How about you?
Michael, Put your thinking hat on and ponder over this.

We read in Romans 10 that one has first to be preached the gospel before they can believe right?

Paul teaches that the gospel is the cross (DBR) correct?

I posted many a scripture where Paul connects the cross with the baptism in Christ name right?

Therefore it stands to reason that like Peter in Acts 2 Paul's sermons would include the teaching of baptism in Christ name otherwise why would people be baptized immediately following a sermon?

SO if you take the context of the scripture you should be able to understand what was preached after told them that they had to believe in Christ. Paul's words in so many other passages connects the forgiveness of sin the new birth from dead in sin to alive in Christ with the baptism in Christ name and also the giving of the indwelling spirit to the baptism in Christ name and also it is part of the believe in Christ as Jesus said in Mark 16. The baptism in Christ name is considered to have been if one believed in Christ to many scripture claim that fact.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24
Michael2012,
Quote
I cited the verses just to show what was the question asked and what was the answer given.
That's tunnel-visioned, assuming that the entire answer was included in the first statement. Believing in Jesus is the first and greatest challenge.

Quote
Looking at the answer, so I asked why was the answer not the same as what others insist is how one is saved per Mk. 16:16, that is, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". That should have been the proper answer to the question isn't it? But that apparently is not what answer was given in Acts 16:31. Why is that?
You don't understand us very well. Me and those who believe as I do, when sharing our faith with an atheist or a pagan, the first issue we tackle is believing in God/Jesus. We don't start with belief and baptism. Once a person believes in Jesus, explaining the rest is a lot easier. With the Ethiopian eunuch Philip began with that very passage of scripture and talked about Jesus, and he saved baptism for last. In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus, and he saved baptism for last. Even with Saul, they dealt with getting him to believe in Jesus first, and saved baptism for last. How Paul and Silas responded to the Philippian Jailer is exactly how we would first respond to him. And he can't really believe in Jesus until he can hear about Jesus. That was an introductory statement. Your argument that baptism has no part in Salvation based on Paul and Silas's initial response, has no basis. The way and when they brought up baptism was consistent. Moreover, they were replying to the Philippian Jailer a question that he had asked, whereas in Mark 16:16 Jesus was giving instruction. The Philippian Jailer and Mark 16:16 is not a comparison.

Quote
The reason is obvious. This is why we can read in the second part of Mk. 16:16, that he who does not believe will be condemned, that is, will not be saved.
That is not a valid argument. Why would Jesus put baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place if it was not part of getting saved?

Quote
Verses 32ff is not part of the answer of Paul and Silas to the question asked of them. So, that is immaterial to the question. What we have in those verses is a narrative of what Paul and Silas did next. The plain and clear answer to the question is not there in those verses, but is found in v.31, which is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".
How can you believe that what's in the narrative is not part of the answer to his question? According to your logic, the guy does not have to repent of any sins and he does not have to surrender to Jesus as Lord of his life Romans 10:10, just because these were not included in the first sentence of their reply. I'm sure that was also covered in the narrative. You're really making a lot of unfounded conclusions from verse 31.

Quote
We need only to read the writings of Paul and see that it is this that Paul went out preaching. If baptism were a requirement for one's salvation, wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to preach that?
And he did preach that! He preached that to the mob in Acts 22 when he told them of his baptism. Mostly though he taught about it, over and over.

Quote
And wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to baptize?
By now you would have been exposed multiple times to the replies of a number of participants here on this matter. By now you would already know that although Paul wasn't sent to do the baptizing himself, that he did place great importance on those he preached to being baptized, and although he did baptize a number himself, him having others do the baptizing did not in any way diminish in his view the importance of baptism. You are importing an idea to his statement that he did not say himself. Why not, instead of repeating a long ago debunked argument, reply to the responses already given?

The thing is that evangelicalism is so steeped in paradigms, it takes so much for granted that this means this, and this means that, that it no longer questions certain passages or tries to get in the original frame of mind of the author.

Like, Christ did not send me to baptize, now "automatically" means that baptism is not part of getting saved, when he didn't say that. It's just "assumed".
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:18:30
Jaime,
Quote
It’s like if someone asks me what must I do to get from Midlland? I would be telling them the absolute truth by saying, get in your car and drive north, but it may not include every single tidbit of information they would need but implied without the paramount part of getting in the car and driving north, you ain’t gonna get there.
Good analogy. Go north, and I'll tell you the rest on the way.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 14:00:01
4WD,
Quote
Perfectly??  I couldn't find that reference.  Do you have it?
How about?
Philippians 3:6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 12:12:45
Michael2012,

Quote
I cited the verses just to show what was the question asked and what was the answer given.
That's tunnel-visioned, assuming that the entire answer was included in the first statement. Believing in Jesus is the first and greatest challenge.

No Sir. I am not assuming that the entire answer was included in the first statement. Rather, it's just that you don't accept the answer as complete. Consider studying:

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Consider also this passage:

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Quote
Looking at the answer, so I asked why was the answer not the same as what others insist is how one is saved per Mk. 16:16, that is, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". That should have been the proper answer to the question isn't it? But that apparently is not what answer was given in Acts 16:31. Why is that?
You don't understand us very well. Me and those who believe as I do, when sharing our faith with an atheist or a pagan, the first issue we tackle is believing in God/Jesus. We don't start with belief and baptism. Once a person believes in Jesus, explaining the rest is a lot easier. With the Ethiopian eunuch Philip began with that very passage of scripture and talked about Jesus, and he saved baptism for last. In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus, and he saved baptism for last. Even with Saul, they dealt with getting him to believe in Jesus first, and saved baptism for last. How Paul and Silas responded to the Philippian Jailer is exactly how we would first respond to him. And he can't really believe in Jesus until he can hear about Jesus. That was an introductory statement. Your argument that baptism has no part in Salvation based on Paul and Silas's initial response, has no basis. The way and when they brought up baptism was consistent. Moreover, they were replying to the Philippian Jailer a question that he had asked, whereas in Mark 16:16 Jesus was giving instruction. The Philippian Jailer and Mark 16:16 is not a comparison.

It's not an issue about how you start when sharing your faith with an atheist or a pagan.

You said "Your argument that baptism has no part in Salvation based on Paul and Silas's initial response, has no basis." That's not my argument here.  As per Mk. 16:16, the answer to the question should properly be , "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" if at all it is the truth that when not baptized, one is not saved. But that apparently is not the truth.

Quote
The reason is obvious. This is why we can read in the second part of Mk. 16:16, that he who does not believe will be condemned, that is, will not be saved.
That is not a valid argument. Why would Jesus put baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place if it was not part of getting saved?

Jesus did not. For clearly, it is about believing that either one is saved or is condemned.


Quote
Verses 32ff is not part of the answer of Paul and Silas to the question asked of them. So, that is immaterial to the question. What we have in those verses is a narrative of what Paul and Silas did next. The plain and clear answer to the question is not there in those verses, but is found in v.31, which is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".
How can you believe that what's in the narrative is not part of the answer to his question? According to your logic, the guy does not have to repent of any sins and he does not have to surrender to Jesus as Lord of his life Romans 10:10, just because these were not included in the first sentence of their reply. I'm sure that was also covered in the narrative. You're really making a lot of unfounded conclusions from verse 31.
It's easy. The narrative simply was not the answer, but is this "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".

You say "According to your logic, the guy does not have to repent of any sins and he does not have to surrender to Jesus as Lord of his life Romans 10:10, just because these were not included in the first sentence of their reply."

No sir. That's not how it is. Don't you know why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance? And don't you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ? 

You said "You're really making a lot of unfounded conclusions from verse 31."

No Sir, I'm not. I have only one conclusion from verse 31, that is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". 

Quote
We need only to read the writings of Paul and see that it is this that Paul went out preaching. If baptism were a requirement for one's salvation, wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to preach that?
And he did preach that! He preached that to the mob in Acts 22 when he told them of his baptism. Mostly though he taught about it, over and over.

No sir. Paul did not preach that without getting baptized with water, one is not saved. Besides Acts 22 is not about Paul preaching, but about his defense.

And wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to baptize?

By now you would have been exposed multiple times to the replies of a number of participants here on this matter. By now you would already know that although Paul wasn't sent to do the baptizing himself, that he did place great importance on those he preached to being baptized, and although he did baptize a number himself, him having others do the baptizing did not in any way diminish in his view the importance of baptism. You are importing an idea to his statement that he did not say himself. Why not, instead of repeating a long ago debunked argument, reply to the responses already given?

The thing is that evangelicalism is so steeped in paradigms, it takes so much for granted that this means this, and this means that, that it no longer questions certain passages or tries to get in the original frame of mind of the author.

Like, Christ did not send me to baptize, now "automatically" means that baptism is not part of getting saved, when he didn't say that. It's just "assumed".


I am not at all saying that baptism isn't important sir. What I'm saying is that what Paul preached is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" and not that one is not saved if he is not baptized.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:07:30
Michael2012,
I'm touched, I thought you had forgotten me.
Quote
Jesus did not. For clearly, it is about believing that either one is saved or is condemned.
Jesus did
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Baptized is in there.

There is no issue as you've been repeating "he who is baptized will not be saved", there is an issue,  "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". That can't be done away with, it's there. Why would Jesus include baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion, if it wasn't a part of getting saved?
Paul did preach to the mob about Ananias's instruction about his baptism and washing away his sins. Again, he put baptism into a getting saved discussion. Preaching can be done in one's defense. It came outta his mouth.

 
Quote
The narrative simply was not the answer, but is this "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".
I beg to differ. The believing that he had done was only after all was said and done, beyond vs. 31.
Acts 16:32-34 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. [33] At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. [34] The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God---he and his whole household.

His family had not been there in vs. 31. All their belief and baptism came after they spoke the word of the Lord to them. And all of it was described as having believed.

You won't be able to play with these words as easily as you did the last.
By now you would already know that although Paul wasn't sent to do the baptizing himself, that he did place great importance on those he preached to being baptized, and although he did baptize a number himself, him having others do the baptizing did not in any way cancel out in his view baptism's place in getting saved. You are importing an idea to his statement that he did not say himself. Why not, instead of repeating a long ago debunked argument, reply to the responses already given?

Quote
No sir. That's not how it is. Don't you know why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance? And don't you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?
Unlikely that this man and his family would have encountered John. And he still wouldn't have known about surrendering to Jesus as Lord of his life from that introductory phrase.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:08:32
Mochael, baptism, as evidenced in scripture is God’s mode of conveying the indwelling Spirit and remission of sin, an answer of a appeal to God for a clean conscience. He does the Spiritual lifting or work in baptism, man only drops his clinched fiat of resistance and passively submits. Baptism is NOT a work by man that earns or merits anything. Just like Naaman did not earn or merit his healing but he had to submit to God’s chosen mode.

As to the question that Paul and Silas answered, “what must I do to be saved?” Absolutely Ibagree with their answer. Belief is paramount, but it doesn’t negated other inspired scripe describing our faith response in baptism, confessing and repentance. It’s like if someone asks me what must I do to get from Midlland? I would be telling them the absolute truth by saying, get in your car and drive north, but it may not include every single tidbit of information they would need but implied without the paramount part of getting in the car and driving north, you ain’t gonna get there.

Baptism is a purification rite. The scriptural evidence that when one was baptized he receives the HS does not make baptism the mode by which God conveys the indwelling of the HS. Why the HS indwells one is because of one's repentance towards God and faith in Christ. Now, this repentance towards God and faith in Christ, as may be understood in the baptism events recorded in scriptures, is what is expressed in the baptism rite. So that, we read that those baptized receive the HS. But we also read of those who have repented towards God and believed in Christ, received the HS, even before their baptism. It is because it is not the baptism per se that the HS indwells one, but one's repentance towards God and faith in Christ that the HS indwells him.   

You said that you agree with Paul and Silas' answer to the question “what must I do to be saved?” , that is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". That's it then.

With regards your analogy of how to get to Midland, I'm sorry but it does not work. When one repents toward God and believe in Christ, the HS indwells the believer and works in and through the man. All that the believer does is obey what the HS tells or leads him to do, letting the HS do His work in him and through him, until he is made perfect. On the other hand, your analogy of one getting into the car and drive north, tells us that it is the man that works to get to Midland. Very different isn't it? 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:48:23
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Baptized is in there.

Yes, "baptized" is there. Considering what is stated, taking away believing leaves being baptized, and that still gets one to be condemned. Now take away being baptized leaves believing. Does that gets one to be condemned? The statement obviously tells us the answer, which is, NO. If not getting baptized gets one to be not saved and so is condemned, the statement obviously is lacking. It should have been "..but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned."   


There is no issue as you've been repeating "he who is baptized will not be saved", there is an issue,  "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". That can't be done away with, it's there. Why would Jesus include baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion, if it wasn't a part of getting saved?
Paul did preach to the mob about Ananias's instruction about his baptism and washing away his sins. Again, he put baptism into a getting saved discussion. Preaching can be done in one's defense. It came outta his mouth.

Paul was saved even before he was baptized sir. He was chosen by the Lord. Listen to what Ananias said to him, "The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."


Quote
The narrative simply was not the answer, but is this "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". 
I beg to differ. The believing that he had done was only after all was said and done, beyond vs. 31.
Acts 16:32-34 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. [33] At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. [34] The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God---he and his whole household.

His family had not been there in vs. 31. All their belief and baptism came after they spoke the word of the Lord to them. And all of it was described as having believed.

You won't be able to play with these words as easily as you did the last.
By now you would already know that although Paul wasn't sent to do the baptizing himself, that he did place great importance on those he preached to being baptized, and although he did baptize a number himself, him having others do the baptizing did not in any way cancel out in his view baptism's place in getting saved. You are importing an idea to his statement that he did not say himself. Why not, instead of repeating a long ago debunked argument, reply to the responses already given?

It seems to me that you are saying that he was baptized even before he came to believe. If he were baptized before he believed, then his baptism is for what?

Quote
You say "According to your logic, the guy does not have to repent of any sins and he does not have to surrender to Jesus as Lord of his life Romans 10:10, just because these were not included in the first sentence of their reply."


Quote
No sir. That's not how it is. Don't you know why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance? And don't you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?

Unlikely that this man and his family would have encountered John. And he still wouldn't have known about surrendering to Jesus as Lord of his life from that introductory phrase.
So, can you tell me what it is you know as to why why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance?

And can you tell me what you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 14:29:12
Michael you went hay wire on my analogy. It was not to compare what man does vs what God does. It was an analogy mainly on sentence structure that you and others have a problem with. He that believes and is baptized is a very very simple sentence stucture.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 16:44:53
Michael, why did Paul have to wash away his sins in baptism? Could he be saved with his sins still credited to him?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 19:04:34
Michael2012 is not a reader of the PLOT but here are a few verses for the watchers to watch.

Mal. 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger,
        and he shall prepare the way before me:
        AND the Lord, whom ye seek,
        shall suddenly come to his temple,
        even the messenger of the covenant,

        whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
Mal. 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming?
        and who shall stand when he appeareth?
        for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:
Mal. 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver:
        and he shall purify the sons of Levi,
        and purge them as gold and silver,
        that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.
Mal. 3:4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord,
        as in the days of old, and as in former years.
Mal. 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment;
        and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers,
        and against the adulterers, and against false swearers,
        and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless,
        and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.
Mal. 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of JACOB are not consumed.

You will remember from Amos 9 that ISRAEL had been scattered and SIFTED so that not a single SEED should drop: they would all be destroyed. SAVING that I will not UTTERLY destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.

SO, there would be none of ISRAEL at Pentecost unless they were pilgrims from around the close nations.

Is. 4:2 In that day shall the BRANCH of the Lord be beautiful and glorious,
       and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely
       for them that are ESCAPED of Israel.
Is. 4:3 And it shall come to pass,
       that he that is left in Zion,
       and he that REMAINETH in Jerusalem,
       shall be called holy,
       even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:

Is. 4:4 WHEN the Lord shall have WASHED away
       the filth of the daughters of Zion,
       and shall have PURGED the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof
       BY the SPIRIT of judgment, and by the SPIRIT of BURNING.

It may be that those who refute ALL of the many passages about baptism to be added to the Assembly or SCHOOL of Christ (only) do not have the RIGHT to be baptized and are part of the MASSES who are hostile to the need for them to submit and obey.


(http://www.piney.com/Malachi.3.4.5.gif)

Mark speaks of the BEGINNING, the ARCHE or the fundamental principle of Jesus beginning His Minstry after John prepared the way by separating a small number of those still alive in Jerusalem PREPARED to receive the Baptism FOR the Remission of sins AND having their spirit's purged so that they could enter into the kingdom.  The least of those admitted into the Kingdom of Christ was greater than John the baptist.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets,
       Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
       which shall PREPARE thy way before thee.
Mark 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
       Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness,
       and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea,
       and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan,
       confessing their sins.

Jesus went out to be baptized to fulfill RIGHTEOUSNESS to be SANCTIFIED AND SENT INTO THE WORLD.

The Viper race would not qualify for baptism in WATER and John said that they would be Baptized by the Spirit (WIND) and separated from the Grain to be baptized in FIRE.

NO ONE COULD RECEIVE A HOLY SPIRIT, BE CONVERTED, BE ADDED TO THE CHURCH, HAVE THEIR SPIRITS TRANSLATED INTO THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM UNTIL PENTECOST AFTER JESUS HAD TAKEN HIS BLOOD INTO THE HEAVENLY TABERNACLE.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 22:18:25
Michael, you said
Quote
I am not at all saying that baptism isn't important sir. What I'm saying is that what Paul preached is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" and not that one is not saved if he is not baptized.
My question to you is why is baptism important?

What is baptism all about and scriptural purpose of baptism in Christ name with scripture backing your claim?

In all fairness we have stated our reasoning on baptism in Christ name as being for remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit with many scriptures to back it word for word so you should be able to do the same if your scriptures read different please show.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 23:33:59
yogi bear,
Very good point. Because many forward this apostate shameful lie about baptism being a public confession of faith that has zero scriptural reference, yet they repeat it endlessly as though it did. It's shameful that any one person would ever teach this to another person. It's heresy for it's lack of Biblical reference. Perfect definition of fake teaching. It is one of the fakest teachings ever perpetrated onto Christendom. It needs to finally go away! There's no way a teaching without any scripture reference can stand up to baptism for salvation/forgiveness of sins which has multiple scripture references. If anyone wants to put forward this fake teaching that water baptism's "purpose" is for a public profession of faith, let them first come up with a scripture reference stating that is the purpose.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 03:02:15
Michael you went hay wire on my analogy. It was not to compare what man does vs what God does. It was an analogy mainly on sentence structure that you and others have a problem with. He that believes and is baptized is a very very simple sentence stucture.

You said "It’s like if someone asks me what must I do to get from Midlland?" And this you put in analogy with the jailer asking “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, isn't it?

Then you said "I would be telling them the absolute truth by saying, get in your car and drive north, but it may not include every single tidbit of information they would need but implied without the paramount part of getting in the car and driving north, you ain’t gonna get there."

You seem to say that, the answer of Paul and Silas, that is, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", is analogous to "get in your car and drive north", and you'll get there. Both taken with all the implications to that to get saved or to get to Midland. Is that not what your analogy is getting at?

That is why I pointed out the failure of the analogy in my previous post, saying:

When one repents toward God and believe in Christ, the HS indwells the believer and works in and through the man. All that the believer does is obey what the HS tells or leads him to do, letting the HS do His work in him and through him, until he is made perfect. On the other hand, your analogy of one getting into the car and drive north, tells us that it is the man that works to get to Midland. Very different isn't it?

But perhaps if your answer as to how to get to Midland is "get in a vehicle that travels towards Midland, and let the driver take you there", it could have made some bit of analogy there.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 03:29:58
Michael, why did Paul have to wash away his sins in baptism? Could he be saved with his sins still credited to him?

As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

After telling Paul that, Ananias said:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

It's not an instruction to get saved, but an instruction to repent towards God, to turn around from what he was doing, that is, persecuting Christ, and call on the name of the Lord. And that is what in the statement of Ananias, the instruction "be baptized" meant to convey. For it had been so since John preached and called everyone to repentance towards God and faith in the coming Messiah, which repentance was expressed by the baptism with water for which John was sent out to perform on those who accepts God's call of repentance, and later performed by the disciples who were with Christ, and still later performed by the apostles and the church, whom Paul was out to persecute and destroy.

Now, whoever repents towards God and faith towards Christ, it is them who may receive God's mercy and forgiveness, the washing away and the blotting out of their sins by God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 04:11:13
As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

After telling Paul that, Ananias said:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

It's not an instruction to get saved, but an instruction to repent towards God, to turn around from what he was doing, that is, persecuting Christ, and call on the name of the Lord. And that is what in the statement of Ananias, the instruction "be baptized" meant to convey. For it had been so since John preached and called everyone to repentance towards God and faith in the coming Messiah, which repentance was expressed by the baptism with water for which John was sent out to perform on those who accepts God's call of repentance, and later performed by the disciples who were with Christ, and still later performed by the apostles and the church, whom Paul was out to persecute and destroy.

Now, whoever repents towards God and faith towards Christ, it is them who may receive God's mercy and forgiveness, the washing away and the blotting out of their sins by God.

Michael, seriously can you not see the injustice you did to that passage. You have Paul saved before he repented and yet in all your wordy response to undo the biblical teaching of baptism for the remission of sin you still failed for it clearly says that Paul was to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) to wash away his sin. You can not undo that part of the statement it is clearly stated why he was to be baptized. Therefore according to the scripture Paul was not saved before his baptism or he was saved but still remained in sin which way are you going to go with that.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 04:51:33
Michael, you said
Quote
I am not at all saying that baptism isn't important sir. What I'm saying is that what Paul preached is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" and not that one is not saved if he is not baptized.

My question to you is why is baptism important?

What is baptism all about and scriptural purpose of baptism in Christ name with scripture backing your claim?

In all fairness we have stated our reasoning on baptism in Christ name as being for remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit with many scriptures to back it word for word so you should be able to do the same if your scriptures read different please show.


There are many baptisms spoken of in scriptures. Nonetheless, let us take the baptism we are talking about in this thread. The baptisms discussed in this thread are the baptism of repentance and baptism with the Holy Spirit. The former being that which is performed by John, and that with water, and the latter being that performed by Jesus, and that with the Holy Spirit.

Repeating what I have already said, a baptism of repentance means a baptism characterized by repentance (see  my reply#75 to you). I would suppose you don't need scriptures for that one. This is the baptism that John came preaching about. And so John came preaching, saying “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Mt. 1:2). While John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, he preached that they should believe on the Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). Also, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:7-8). This is the work that John was sent out to do, for the coming of the Lord. Nothing beyond this preparatory work could have resulted from this that John had done. For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins, but rather, to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:3), Jesus Christ, who alone could effect the forgiveness of sin. And this the Lord will do by washing away the sins by baptizing him, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit. 

Now, what is the "baptism in Christ name"?  The "Christian" baptism with water is no different from the baptism of repentance that John and the apostles performed on each repentant sinner who comes to faith in God and Christ. This baptism does not take away our sins. Rather, through it, that is, by the baptism of repentance, we step right into and are brought into the grace and mercy of God in Christ and out from His wrath.

Yes, in scriptures we read that when one was baptized in the name of Christ, he receives the Holy Spirit. We also read of those who received the Holy Spirit, even before their baptism (Acts 10:44-48). By this we understand that it is not because of the baptism with water per se that the Holy Spirit is given to one, but one's repentance towards God and believing in Christ that the Holy Spirit is given to one. 

Now sir yogi bear, let me take you to this situation:

If the question asked of Paul and Silas by the the jailer were asked of you, what will your answer be? Will it be different from the answer of Paul and Silas?

The jailer's question is "Sir, what must I do to be saved?"

Paul and Silas' answer is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

What's yours?
 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 06:03:11
Michael, being chosen by God for a purpose as Paul was doesn’t save the person. Which is why Paul needed his sins ashed away. Pharoah was chosen for a purpose by God.

Baptism is the appeal to God For a clear conscience. 1Peter 3:21. It is NOT fROM a clear conscience as some translations say. Ananias was basically tellt Paul to wash away his ains in baptism, appealing to God  FOR a clean conscience. God hears the appeal in baptism and answers it by remitting sins IN baptism. 100% God, no magic H2O. THAT’s why Ananias told him to do what he told him.

Ananias told Paul he WILL (future) bring the gospel to the gentiles. Paul’s salvation was not yet complete at the time of Ananias statement about his future task.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 06:09:44
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 03:29:58
As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

After telling Paul that, Ananias said:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

It's not an instruction to get saved, but an instruction to repent towards God, to turn around from what he was doing, that is, persecuting Christ, and call on the name of the Lord. And that is what in the statement of Ananias, the instruction "be baptized" meant to convey. For it had been so since John preached and called everyone to repentance towards God and faith in the coming Messiah, which repentance was expressed by the baptism with water for which John was sent out to perform on those who accepts God's call of repentance, and later performed by the disciples who were with Christ, and still later performed by the apostles and the church, whom Paul was out to persecute and destroy.

Now, whoever repents towards God and faith towards Christ, it is them who may receive God's mercy and forgiveness, the washing away and the blotting out of their sins by God.

Michael, seriously can you not see the injustice you did to that passage. You have Paul saved before he repented and yet in all your wordy response to undo the biblical teaching of baptism for the remission of sin you still failed for it clearly says that Paul was to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) to wash away his sin. You can not undo that part of the statement it is clearly stated why he was to be baptized. Therefore according to the scripture Paul was not saved before his baptism or he was saved but still remained in sin which way are you going to go with that.

It is not I, but scriptures that says that Paul was chosen by God, even before Paul's repentance. This only points to the sovereignty in the election of Paul by God. If Paul were saved by God's election of him, must I not believe that? Of course I believe that, for who am I to question what God had done? In verse 10 of Acts 22, Paul said ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ Can't you not see by that Paul believed that the voice he heard was that of Jesus and that he believed in Him by asking Him what he shall do? That by that, he already had changed his mind about doing what he was doing and instead do what Jesus had to tell him what to do?

Apparently you don't want to listen to the truth of what Ananias said to Paul. Paul was chosen by God, to know His will, see the Just One, hear His voice, and will be His witness to all men. This spells what happened to Paul. What he is instructed to do are all with regards to this, not his getting saved. To say that his being baptized gets him saved is a perversion of the passage. While baptism may well be the rite that signifies the washing of sins, it is not  the water of baptism that cleanses the heart of the man of the filth of his sins but the Holy Spirit. That is the baptism with the HS which Jesus does in a repentant one. While this could happen during one's baptism with water , it does not mean that it only happens during that time. Paul was instructed to be baptized for he was to set out to begin and carry on what has been appointed to him by God. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 07:09:43
Michael, being chosen by God for a purpose as Paul was doesn’t save the person. Which is why Paul needed his sins ashed away. Pharoah was chosen for a purpose by God.

Baptism is the appeal to God For a clear conscience. 1Peter 3:21. It is NOT fROM a clear conscience as some translations say. Ananias was basically tellt Paul to wash away his ains in baptism, appealing to God  FOR a clean conscience. God hears the appeal in baptism and answers it by remitting sins IN baptism. 100% God, no magic H2O. THAT’s why Ananias told him to do what he told him.

Ananias told Paul he WILL (future) bring the gospel to the gentiles. Paul’s salvation was not yet complete at the time of Ananias statement about his future task.


I agree that being chosen by God for a purpose doesn’t necessarily save the person, as in the case of Pharaoh. And I am not at all saying that such was so. However, we are discussing that of Paul, wherein Paul was chosen to know His will, see the Just One, hear His voice, and will be His witness to all men. That certainly amounts to his having been certainly sanctified and saved by God. In comparison, that of Pharaoh puts him unsaved, and amounts to his certain condemnation. For God had hardened his heart, and it was for that purpose that God have raised Pharaoh up. For as the scriptures says, God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. God, in Paul and in Pharaoh had demonstrated this.

Granting, and not to argue on this, that Baptism is the appeal to God for a clear conscience, in the case of Paul, he really need not an appeal to God, for had not God chosen him and appointed things for him to do? Ananias instructed Paul to arise and get himself purified by getting himself baptized, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. For he had just told Paul what God has appointed of him to do, that is, to know His will, see the Just One, hear His voice, and will be His witness to all men. First thing then that Paul must do is purify himself and be sanctified for this work that the Lord had appointed of him, so that Ananias said "And now why are you waiting?". For the Jews, such as is Paul, knows the right thing to do for one who sets out to do what has been appointed by God of him to do, just like in the case of Jesus. For even Jesus, who really needs not purify himself as He is clean, pure, and holy, went to John to be baptized, as He sets out to begin what the Father had appointed of Him to do.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 07:29:08
Ananias told Paul God’s will. Arise and be baptized washing away your sins calling upon the Lord. One is not saved until their sins are removed. God can abide no sin. He chose a way to do that. And HE does the remitting in the water, the spiritually inert and powerless water, even for Paul whom he chose for a special purpose.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 07:42:40
Ananias told Paul God’s will. Arise and be baptized washing away your sins calling upon the Lord. One is not saved until their sins are removed. God can abide no sin. He chose a way to do that. And HE does the remitting in the water, the spiritually inert and powerless water, even for Paul whom he chose for a special purpose.
::thumbup:: ::thumbup::

 ::amen!:: ::amen!::

+1
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:00:32
Michael2012,
Would Paul baptize the Philippian jailer for a reason other than for which he was baptized?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:05:26
Michael2012,
Quote
Yes, "baptized" is there. Considering what is stated, taking away believing leaves being baptized, and that still gets one to be condemned. Now take away being baptized leaves believing. Does that gets one to be condemned? The statement obviously tells us the answer, which is, NO. If not getting baptized gets one to be not saved and so is condemned, the statement obviously is lacking. It should have been "..but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned."
You're working your way backwards with the second sentence to try to invalidate the first sentence, but that's not strong enough to make it go away. What is baptism doing there in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place?

Quote
As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."
I think the others have done a fabulous job answering this.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:19:12
Michael, the first century folks INCLUDING Jesus never contemplated an unbaptized believer, since immediate baptism was ALWAYS the case.  That is why Jesus addressed 2 realities: 1) a believer that is baptized and saved  and 2) a non-believer that is condemned. A non-believer cannot be scripturally baptized, so that is a non-sequitor.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:02:14
Quote
Repeating what I have already said, a baptism of repentance means a baptism characterized by repentance (see  my reply#75 to you). I would suppose you don't need scriptures for that one. This is the baptism that John came preaching about. And so John came preaching, saying “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Mt. 1:2). While John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, he preached that they should believe on the Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). Also, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:7-8). This is the work that John was sent out to do, for the coming of the Lord. Nothing beyond this preparatory work could have resulted from this that John had done. For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins, but rather, to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:3), Jesus Christ, who alone could effect the forgiveness of sin. And this the Lord will do by washing away the sins by baptizing him, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit. 
You said "For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins,"
Michael can you seriously not see this statement here is a direct misstatement of scripture. Scripture says

Mark 1:4 (KJV)
4  John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The scripture teach John was sent to preach forgiveness of sin. That is what his baptism was for it was the beginning of the gospel of Christ. Mark 1:1
You can not say that Johns baptism was not for the remission of sin for it is clearly recorded that it is for such.

You said "Also, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the Holy Spirit "

Yes Johns baptism will wax away and the baptism in Christ name will overtake it but what does scripture teach on that?
Is the baptism with the holy spirit john foretold a dry baptism or is it what you call the Christian baptism by the way where in scripture is this told of?

Look at what is promised. John was saying that Jesus would give the indwelling spirit in which his baptism could not do because Jesus had of yet not went to the cross.

John 7:38-39 (KJV)
38  He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

After the cross we read

Acts 2:38-39 (KJV)
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.
39  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

John's prophecy did come true Jesus in the baptism in his name is giving the indwelling spirit just as John had said would come to pass. It is the indwelling that was promised to all back when Johns was baptizing for the remission of sin pointing to this day.

Paul cleared that up in Acts 19

Acts 19:1-5 (KJV)
1  And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2  He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Clearly you can see that Paul says that the indwelling spirit is given in the baptism in Christ name that is what was lacking in John's that John's could not do.

Now that Paul has corrected their baptism in accordance to Acts 2:38 he then lays hands on these Ephesians so as they can build the church in Ephesus. The difference shown in the spirit with in and the spirit upon that you keep getting confused in.

The indwelling produces fruit with in you change you from inside out. The spirit upon is the spirit working through you as a sign to further the building of the church to confirm the word is of God with signs to show it is authentic

Mark 16:17-20 (KJV)
17  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19  So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20  And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

You said  "Jesus Christ, who alone could effect the forgiveness of sin. And this the Lord will do by washing away the sins by baptizing him, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit."

Here you are correct up to the point you said not of water. It is clearly recorded in scripture that the baptism that Jesus was to baptize with is in water. It is the only one that bears his name that of Act 2:38 and in Acts 10

Acts 10:47-48 (KJV)
47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Jesus was to give the indwelling spirit that is what John was speaking of in baptize with the Holy Ghost it is promised to all who call upon the Lord through baptism in the name of Christ and scripture show that came true in Acts 2:38

What you call the dry baptism of the spirit is not what the scriptures teach you say it is. I find that nowhere but in your mind. You and I have been over this several times but you still can not see the difference in what you teach compared to what the scripture back them selves with other scripture to drive home the true teaching on this subject. To many other scriptures back Acts 2:38 and says it means just what was recorded Baptism in Christ name is for the remission of sin and the receiving of the indwelling spirit.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:20:13
Michael2012,
Would Paul baptize the Philippian jailer for a reason other than for which he was baptized?


No.

He and his household were baptized. And what baptism is that? 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:30:54
No.

He and his household were baptized. And what baptism is that?
The one of Acts 2:38 just like all the other references which is the one of Eph. 4:5
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:48:48
Michael2012,
Quote
No.

He and his household were baptized. And what baptism is that?
Since Paul would baptize the Phillipian jailer and his household for the same reason he was baptized, then to answer your question, look at the purpose for which Paul was baptized Acts 22:16.

And
Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

He didn't get up and get Holy Spirit baptized, he got up and was baptized.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 12:13:39
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
           and preach the GOSPEL to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth [complies] AND is baptized SHALL be saved;
           but he that believeth NOT shall be damned.

Believeth Not's do not COMPLY with the gospel command in order to be saved. They do not just lack faith but are active agents refuting the Holy Scriptures: that is their job and cannot change.

Faith or trust means to COMPLY which is the opposite of NOT Comply--Apistis
 
2. comply, OPPOSITE to APISTEO

Example of the BELIEVETH NOT
 
A. [7] Periander, [apistiês] SKEPTICAL,
B. kept him in confinement, letting him go nowhere, and waited for the sailors.

Those who COMPLY NOT Apist-eô I. disbelieve, distrust, was distrusted, i.e. no one could be sure of knowing,

II. = apeitheô, disobey, to be DISOBEDIENT, they refuse to comply, They are not to be trusted, and so of persons and their acts, not trusty, faithless, Act., mistrustful, incredulous, suspicious, Treacherously, cause to REVOLT from. also kleptô meaning: seize or occupy secretly, effect or bring about clandestinely, gamon, to be 'smuggled in' get rid of imperceptibly

OF THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL COMMANDED IN ISAIAH BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF CHRIST

Rom. 10:16 But they have not all OBEYED the gospel.
         For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath BELIEVED our report?
2Th. 1:8 In FLAMING FIRE taking vengeance on them that know not God,
        and that OBEY NOT the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Pet. 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the HOUSE (church0 of God:
        and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that OBEY NOT the gospel of God?

THIS IS PROOF THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW GOD

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his WORD were baptized:
        and the same day there were ADDED unto them about three thousand souls.

John's Baptism of SPIRIT and FIRE is to be baptized with WIND AND FIRE. 

Matt. 3:11 I indeed baptize you with WATER unto repentance:
        but he that cometh after me [Jesus] is mightier than I,
        whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:
        he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost [WIND], and with FIRE:
Matt. 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand,
        and he will throughly purge his floor,
        and gather his wheat into the garner;
        but he will BURN up the chaff
        with UNQUENCHABLE FIRE

It is reasonable to be "consumed" even if it takes forever.   The Word or Logos is God's Regulative Principle and it is widely used in the literature to EXCLUDE whatever you had performed for you this morning.  People can begin to be consumed by the BREATH OF THEIR LIPS.

g762. asbestos, as´-bes-tos; from 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 4570; not extinguished, i.e. (by implication) perpetual: — not to be quenched, unquenchable.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 12:15:36
Michael2012,
I missed these before, so I am addressing them now.
Quote
It seems to me that you are saying that he was baptized even before he came to believe. If he were baptized before he believed, then his baptism is for what?
I am not saying that he was baptized even before he came to believe. I am saying that, as in Acts 19 when Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, and then asked them 'Then what baptism did you receive?', baptism was also included in the definition of the jailer and his household "having believed".
Acts 16:33-34 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. [34] And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Quote
So, can you tell me what it is you know as to why why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance?

And can you tell me what you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?
John was sent to prepare the way for the Lord and so he did. It wasn't required for him to reach the entire world to make such preparation. To repent toward God is make a decision to turn away from sin. What the jailer and his household learned about repentance and verbally surrendering to Jesus as Lord, they learned in verse 32, which is also part of getting saved.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 23:08:39
Here's another proof that baptism, proposed as a mere public profession of faith, is a heresy.
I've been looking through different websites of people explaining the purpose of baptism as such, and in their explanation, not one of them cites a scripture indicating it as such. You can do your own search and confirm this, here is one example from a different forum
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/is-baptism-a-public-profession-of-faith.7917833/?amp=1

And here is another example
http://m.grace.church/purpose-baptism

By their own explanation, they should know that this is a made-up teaching cause no one can come up with a scripture reference to justify it. How could anyone look you straight in the face and say this is biblical? They should at least scrap this one, go back to the drawing board, and come back with something more believable.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 08:38:32
Quote
Michael2012,
Quote
Yes, "baptized" is there. Considering what is stated, taking away believing leaves being baptized, and that still gets one to be condemned. Now take away being baptized leaves believing. Does that gets one to be condemned? The statement obviously tells us the answer, which is, NO. If not getting baptized gets one to be not saved and so is condemned, the statement obviously is lacking. It should have been "..but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned."
You're working your way backwards with the second sentence to try to invalidate the first sentence, but that's not strong enough to make it go away. What is baptism doing there in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place?

No Sir. I don't intend to invalidate any part of the statement sir. I was just trying to point out to you that it is the matter of believing or faith that is really that which tells whether one is saved or is condemned. Would you like me to cite scriptures? Had not Jesus said in John 3:18, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

As with e.r.m., consider studying the following:

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Consider also this passage:

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

You asked "What is baptism doing there in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place?"

What else, but to be taken in connection to believing. For in baptism, one repents towards God and faith towards Christ. It is this repentance towards God and faith towards Christ that one receives forgiveness of sins. And this is why we read scriptures that says "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin".

One would ask, would one who repents towards God and faith towards Christ, be forgiven of his sins, even when he is not yet baptized, or before he is baptized, or when he is baptized at a later time, or when there is no time to be baptized?


Quote
As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

I think the others have done a fabulous job answering this.

And I forgot to add, Paul was saved because he repented and believed in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes they have done a fabulous job, but answering what? The fabulous thing that they can do is to listen and try to understand what Ananias said to Paul. It was an unconditional election and appointment by God of Paul. If they don't see that as the salvation of Paul, who himself confessed and considers himself as the chief of sinners, but insist that Paul was saved because he was baptized with water, then they have closed their eyes to the truth that salvation belongs to God and is the work of God and is accomplished by God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 08:47:18
I was just trying to point out to you that it is the matter of believing or faith that is really that which tells whether one is saved or is condemned.
And now you have to define what it means to believe.  Can you believe the gospel and yet reject the gospel and still be saved?  I don't think so. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 09:11:38
Michael, the first century folks INCLUDING Jesus never contemplated an unbaptized believer, since immediate baptism was ALWAYS the case.  That is why Jesus addressed 2 realities: 1) a believer that is baptized and saved  and 2) a non-believer that is condemned. A non-believer cannot be scripturally baptized, so that is a non-sequitor.

That is not quite right sir. A believer is a believer the moment he believes in his heart, in God and in Christ. And if you will think about it, that is repentance towards God and towards Christ. Getting baptized may well be the outward expression of the repentance and faith that comes from within the heart and the confession of it. A believer in Christ is saved not really because he is baptized with water, but because God had forgiven him of all the sins he had done. And that because of Christ. Having believed, the believer was sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, in Christ.

A non-believer, needless to say, is condemned, for he is not in Christ. Now, can a false believer get himself baptized? Yes he can. For he can lie about believing, and say that he believes in Christ and so may be baptized by the unsuspecting minister. For no man truly knows the heart of man. That the minister could then just presume that one who confesses to repent and believe in Christ is truthful and so baptizes him.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 09:58:13
That is not quite right sir.
He is absolutely right.  Anyone with a lick of sense, understands what it means when Jesus said, "believes AND is baptized".  It means that both are included  --  Period.  Any argument to the contrary is simply a demonstration of ignorance of language.

Now if you can find any scriptural statement that says that there is no need for baptism, that would be different.  But of curse you can't.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 12:28:40
4WD,
Quote
Any argument to the contrary is simply a demonstration of ignorance of language.
I don't know, I suspect it's more of a deliberate turning a blind eye. "No it can't be true, what can I look for to make it not true?"
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 13:22:34
Michael, yes a believer is saved because GOD forgives him IN baptism, which if biblical example means anything baptism in christ’s name was immediate. We are clothed with Christ in baptism. God does the forgiving in baptism as plenty of scripture indicates. As I have said the water is powerless, it is simply the mode God chose to do HIS work. Believe and be baptized and you shall be saved.

Believe and wait 3 years to be baptized, God will have to make that call. We only have examples of immediate baptism in scripture.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 13:43:01
Michael, yes a believer is saved because god forgives him in baptism, which if biblical example means anything baptism in christ’s name was immediate. We are clothed with Christ in baptism. God does the forgiving in baptism as plenty of scripture indicates. As I have said the water is powerless, it is simply the mode God chose to do HIS work. Believe and be baptized and you shall be saved.

Believe and wait 3 years to be baptized, God will have to make that call. We only have examples of immediate baptism in scripture.

Believe and wait 3 years to be baptized?  Is baptism worthless after 3 years?

Obviously, the NT example is immediate.  God's Word simply does not address someone who believes and was not immediately baptized, because it wasn't a thing.

God's Word also says that salvation is by Grace is through Faith.  I think the parsing of baptism from faith is destructive.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 13:48:56
Texas Conservative,
I agree that the parsing of baptism from faith is destructive.

I also think the fact that baptism was always immediate is also evidence that it was part of getting saved. When it is taught otherwise, it is rampant that people delay. That's just human nature. The apostles never had to deal with that.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Jul 25, 2018 - 00:19:33
Quote
Repeating what I have already said, a baptism of repentance means a baptism characterized by repentance (see  my reply#75 to you). I would suppose you don't need scriptures for that one. This is the baptism that John came preaching about. And so John came preaching, saying “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Mt. 1:2). While John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, he preached that they should believe on the Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). Also, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:7-8). This is the work that John was sent out to do, for the coming of the Lord. Nothing beyond this preparatory work could have resulted from this that John had done. For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins, but rather, to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:3), Jesus Christ, who alone could effect the forgiveness of sin. And this the Lord will do by washing away the sins by baptizing him, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit.

You said "For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins,"
Michael can you seriously not see this statement here is a direct misstatement of scripture. Scripture says

Mark 1:4 (KJV)
4  John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The scripture teach John was sent to preach forgiveness of sin. That is what his baptism was for it was the beginning of the gospel of Christ. Mark 1:1
You can not say that Johns baptism was not for the remission of sin for it is clearly recorded that it is for such.

What I said is "For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins, but rather, to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:3)". Perhaps you did not understand what I said there. John was not sent out to forgive sins nor effect it. For the purpose that John was sent, was to prepare the way of the Lord. And that is, in the spirit and power of Elijah.

Your statement, "The scripture teach John was sent to preach forgiveness of sin." is that which seems to be a misstatement. For clearly, what Mark said is that what John preach is the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. That is different from saying that John preached forgiveness of sins. He preached "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Consider this truth about John.

Luke 1:13-17
13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Mt. 17:10-13
10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
11 Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

What do you know of Elijah's message? Is it not repentance towards the true God?


You said "Also, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the Holy Spirit "

Yes Johns baptism will wax away and the baptism in Christ name will overtake it but what does scripture teach on that?
Is the baptism with the holy spirit john foretold a dry baptism or is it what you call the Christian baptism by the way where in scripture is this told of?

Look at what is promised. John was saying that Jesus would give the indwelling spirit in which his baptism could not do because Jesus had of yet not went to the cross.

John 7:38-39 (KJV)
38  He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

After the cross we read

Acts 2:38-39 (KJV)
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.
39  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

John's prophecy did come true Jesus in the baptism in his name is giving the indwelling spirit just as John had said would come to pass. It is the indwelling that was promised to all back when Johns was baptizing for the remission of sin pointing to this day.

Paul cleared that up in Acts 19

Acts 19:1-5 (KJV)
1  And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2  He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Clearly you can see that Paul says that the indwelling spirit is given in the baptism in Christ name that is what was lacking in John's that John's could not do.

Now that Paul has corrected their baptism in accordance to Acts 2:38 he then lays hands on these Ephesians so as they can build the church in Ephesus. The difference shown in the spirit with in and the spirit upon that you keep getting confused in.

The indwelling produces fruit with in you change you from inside out. The spirit upon is the spirit working through you as a sign to further the building of the church to confirm the word is of God with signs to show it is authentic

Mark 16:17-20 (KJV)
17  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19  So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20  And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

The baptism that John said that the Messiah will do, is with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:7-8). This is not the same as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a purification thing, a washing, a cleansing. That is different from the indwelling and from the empowering of the HS. The baptism with the HS is the purification of the believer of the filth of sin, of the guilt and of the bad conscience.   

You said "John was saying that Jesus would give the indwelling spirit in which his baptism could not do because Jesus had of yet not went to the cross." While it is true that apostle John spoke of those believing in Christ would receive the HS, notice what John said concerning this. It is to them that believes. And John does not even connect this to the baptism with water.

In Acts 2, Peter indeed said "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." But that does not put the receiving of the HS necessarily to be when one is baptized. As I have pointed out that it is by believing that he gets to receive the HS, we can understand here that the receiving then is in the believing in Christ, which is the subject of the repentance that John was out calling on the people to do.

In Acts 19, notice what Paul said in v.2 "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Clearly, Paul tells us of the receiving of the HS to be in the believing. What he said in vv.3-5 points to believing in Christ, so that they may receive the HS, and not that in baptism, not of the water baptism that John the baptist performed nor that by the apostles and the disciples of Christ.

You said "Now that Paul has corrected their baptism in accordance to Acts 2:38..." There was nothing to be corrected about John's baptism, nor there was something lacking in it. For John's baptism is a baptism of repentance, nothing more. The only purpose is that of repentance, which prepares the people for the coming of the Messiah, in whom they they should believe, as Paul explained in Acts 19:4.


You said  "Jesus Christ, who alone could effect the forgiveness of sin. And this the Lord will do by washing away the sins by baptizing him, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit."

Here you are correct up to the point you said not of water. It is clearly recorded in scripture that the baptism that Jesus was to baptize with is in water. It is the only one that bears his name that of Act 2:38 and in Acts 10

Acts 10:47-48 (KJV)
47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Jesus was to give the indwelling spirit that is what John was speaking of in baptize with the Holy Ghost it is promised to all who call upon the Lord through baptism in the name of Christ and scripture show that came true in Acts 2:38

What you call the dry baptism of the spirit is not what the scriptures teach you say it is. I find that nowhere but in your mind. You and I have been over this several times but you still can not see the difference in what you teach compared to what the scripture back them selves with other scripture to drive home the true teaching on this subject. To many other scriptures back Acts 2:38 and says it means just what was recorded Baptism in Christ name is for the remission of sin and the receiving of the indwelling spirit.

You said "It is clearly recorded in scripture that the baptism that Jesus was to baptize with is in water." No sir. This is what John the baptist said, that the Messiah will baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk.1:7-8). That is too clear to not see and understand, and say that Jesus was to baptize with water.


Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Wed Jul 25, 2018 - 06:31:58
Michael,
The lack of rational thought in that post is truly amazing.
Quote from: Michael
For John's baptism is a baptism of repentance, nothing more. The only purpose is that of repentance,
The purpose of John's baptism was not repentance. John's baptism was NOT for repentance. It was a baptism OF repentance. It was a baptism FOR the forgiveness of sins.
Quote from: Michael
In Acts 19, notice what Paul said in v.2 "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Clearly, Paul tells us of the receiving of the HS to be in the believing. What he said in vv.3-5 points to believing in Christ, so that they may receive the HS, and not that in baptism, not of the water baptism that John the baptist performed nor that by the apostles and the disciples of Christ.
Again the lack of rational thinking is demonstrated.  When the disciples said to Paul, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit," he didn't question their belief, he questioned their baptism.  It was clear to Paul that they believed. It was also clear that something was awry in their baptism and therefore his question was  "Then what baptism did you receive?" .  When he heard their answer he immediately corrected that mistake.  "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."   Clearly their problem wasn't that they didn't believe, their problem was they hadn't been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Both John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are for the forgiveness of sin.  The difference between the two as that in baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the one being baptized not only receives the forgiveness of his sins, he also receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Thu Jul 26, 2018 - 08:47:38
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:20:13
No.

He and his household were baptized. And what baptism is that?
size=10pt]The one of Acts 2:38 just like all the other references which is the one of Eph. 4:5[/size]

Obviously. It was the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, which involves repentance and belief in Christ.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 26, 2018 - 12:02:05
Which means it has a lot to do with salvation. Counter to a lot of folk’s opinion here.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Fri Jul 27, 2018 - 13:44:50
Michael2012,
Quote
Obviously. It was the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, which involves repentance and belief in Christ.
A la Acts 2:38-39.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 00:12:14
Michael2012,
Quote
No.

He and his household were baptized. And what baptism is that?
Since Paul would baptize the Phillipian jailer and his household for the same reason he was baptized, then to answer your question, look at the purpose for which Paul was baptized Acts 22:16.

And
Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

He didn't get up and get Holy Spirit baptized, he got up and was baptized.
[/size]

Ananias said to Paul, after proclaiming to him what God had appointed of him, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Ananias there is voicing out to Paul what he ought to do now that he was chosen by God to serve Him. He impressed on Paul to go on and repent from what he was doing, that is, from persecuting the church and Christ, and to ask for forgiveness by calling on God. And indeed Paul did and he was baptized.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 07:31:25
Michael2012,
Quote
Quote
It seems to me that you are saying that he was baptized even before he came to believe. If he were baptized before he believed, then his baptism is for what?
I missed these before, so I am addressing them now.I am not saying that he was baptized even before he came to believe. I am saying that, as in Acts 19 when Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, and then asked them 'Then what baptism did you receive?', baptism was also included in the definition of the jailer and his household "having believed".
Acts 16:33-34 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. [34] And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

That's right, Paul asked about them receiving the HS when they believed. Clearly, the receiving is in the believing. What we see in the question of Paul concerning their baptism, is that, baptism involves the believing in Christ, which if they did, they should have received the HS. Now we learn that they were baptized, that of John. It was obvious to Paul that while they were baptized, the believing in the Lord Jesus Christ was not there, mentioning to them that 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. They obviously missed this one, even saying, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” So, not the baptism really, but in the believing that one gets to receive the HS.

Quote
So, can you tell me what it is you know as to why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance?

And can you tell me what you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?
John was sent to prepare the way for the Lord and so he did. It wasn't required for him to reach the entire world to make such preparation. To repent toward God is make a decision to turn away from sin. What the jailer and his household learned about repentance and verbally surrendering to Jesus as Lord, they learned in verse 32, which is also part of getting saved.

That's right, John was sent to prepare the way of the Lord. But while you admit that he did just that, you haven't told me how he did that. Obviously he did that by calling everybody to repentance. He calls everyone to the baptism of repentance and saying that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

To repent towards God and Christ, more than turning away from sinful works, is to change one's heart and mind, from disbelief, to belief in God and Christ.

So, it is really about believing in God and Christ. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 07:39:11
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 08:38:32
I was just trying to point out to you that it is the matter of believing or faith that is really that which tells whether one is saved or is condemned.
And now you have to define what it means to believe.  Can you believe the gospel and yet reject the gospel and still be saved?  I don't think so.

Believe the gospel and yet reject it? Needless to say, that could not be.

One cannot claim to believe Christ and yet reject Christ, could he?

Now, there is a difference between faith and obedience.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 07:42:52
And now you have to define what it means to believe.  Can you believe the gospel and yet reject the gospel and still be saved?  I don't think so.


Believe the gospel and yet reject it? Needless to say, that could not be.

One cannot claim to believe Christ and yet reject Christ, could he?

Now, there is a difference between faith and obedience.
If there is a difference between faith and obedience  then why cannot one  believe but not obey?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 07:44:06
If there is a difference between faith and obedience  then why cannot one  believe but not obey?
It's interesting that Romans at the beginning and the end speaks of 'the obedience of faith' ; 'obedience to the faith'.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 08:00:09
It's interesting that Romans at the beginning and the end speaks of 'the obedience of faith' ; 'obedience to the faith'.
Yes it does.  Which means that there is a 'lack of obedience of faith' ; a disobedience to the faith. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 08:02:39
Yes it does.  Which means that there is a 'lack of obedience of faith' ; a disobedience to the faith.  But then "faith" does not carry the same meaning for those two statements.
I think part of the idea of those phrases is that faith is not a meritorious work.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 08:11:15
I think part of the idea of those phrases is that faith is not a meritorious work.
Is obedience a meritorious work?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 08:12:59
Is obedience a meritorious work?
No; it's what the Holy Spirit produces in the heart.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 08:20:29
No; it's what the Holy Spirit produces in the heart.

So you think obedience is what the Holy Spirit produces?

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Th 1:7-8).


And the Lord is going to take vengeance upon them that the Holy Spirit did not produce the obedience in their hearts?  I don't believe that at all.

Gotta Go, be back later this afternoon.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 08:52:34
No; it's what the Holy Spirit produces in the heart.

Any soteriology requires a work of God on each individual sinner's heart before that sinner can be able to have faith in Christ, rather than the sinner having the freewill to choose, is one that actually puts the blame for the condemnation of any on God if He does not do such a work in them.

If God wants all saved, and I believe He does (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9), then to the extent that it takes such a work for somebody to be saved, shouldn't God work thusly in the hearts of all?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 10:57:40
Quote from: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 09:11:38
That is not quite right sir.


He is absolutely right.  Anyone with a lick of sense, understands what it means when Jesus said, "believes AND is baptized".  It means that both are included  --  Period.  Any argument to the contrary is simply a demonstration of ignorance of language.

Now if you can find any scriptural statement that says that there is no need for baptism, that would be different.  But of curse you can't.


No need for baptism? What baptism in particular? Are you referring to the baptism with water or baptism with the HS?

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?
 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 11:00:52
Michael, yes a believer is saved because GOD forgives him IN baptism, which if biblical example means anything baptism in christ’s name was immediate. We are clothed with Christ in baptism. God does the forgiving in baptism as plenty of scripture indicates. As I have said the water is powerless, it is simply the mode God chose to do HIS work. Believe and be baptized and you shall be saved.

Believe and wait 3 years to be baptized, God will have to make that call. We only have examples of immediate baptism in scripture.


Does God forgives only in baptism?

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 11:29:15
No need for baptism? What baptism in particular? Are you referring to the baptism with water or baptism with the HS?

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?
 
The repentant thief on the cross believed and went to paradise, without being baptised.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 12:40:57
faroukfarouk,
Quote
The repentant thief on the cross believed and went to paradise, without being baptised.
The thief on the cross argument has been debunked almost since ancient times. How come you are still using it? Are you familiar with ex post facto? Why would the thief on the cross be expected to fulfill a command, namely baptism "in Jesus's name", which had not yet been given at the time of his crucifixion? Only the people who were around when the command was first given, which was after Jesus resurrection, and those thereafter would be expected to follow that command. How come you don't put two and two together with the time frame?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 12:46:32
Michael,
Quote
Does God forgives only in baptism?

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?
The Bible says this is where it happens Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:4-7, (repent and believe is "part" of it, not all of it) so this is what we teach.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 12:51:38
Michael, all I can tell you is there is NO reason to parse baptism away from salvation. Who cares what nanosecond it occurs if baptism is immediate as the Bible teaches. The first century folks would have been aghast at the modern efforts to decide if salvation occurred prerepentance, post confession, pre-baptism, post baptism or while under the water. It’s ludicrous to parse it. Salvation involves believing, it involves repentance and confession and yes it involves baptism. All inclusive of what we are instructed in the Bible as our faith response.

If someone clings relentlessly to the believe verses, I say yes belief is necessary along with the other things scripture CUMULATIVELY says is required. (If not why not?)

MILK OF THE WORD STUFF. We need to get this and move on to the meat.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 12:53:52
Jaime,
Agreed.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 12:59:10
faroukfarouk,The thief on the cross argument has been debunked almost since ancient times. How come you are still using it? Are you familiar with ex post facto? Why would the thief on the cross be expected to fulfill a command, namely baptism "in Jesus's name", which had not yet been given at the time of his crucifixion? Only the people who were around when the command was first given, which was after Jesus resurrection, and those thereafter would be expected to follow that command. How come you don't put two and two together with the time frame?
So are you now saying that if today a new believer were crucified by enemies of the Gospel and he died without being baptised, he wouldn't be in heaven? (I'm not sure you're suggesting that.)
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:08:02
What reasonable excuse would a believer have to remain unbaptized? Did that ever happen in the NT? Of course the thief doesn’t count as Erm has already shown. Immediate baptism IS the Biblical pattern, if that means anything and I submit it DOES.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:16:04
What reasonable excuse would a believer have to remain unbaptized? Did that ever happen in the NT? Of course the thief doesn’t count as Erm has already shown. Immediate baptism IS the Biblical pattern, if that means anything and I submit it DOES.
Oh I agree that baptism should happen, indeed; what I'm saying is that its absence in the context of a new believer who is martyred, etc. will hardly send the person to perdition!
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:27:02
It’s similar to the modern day hypothetical of dying in a car crash on the way to get baptized. I am leaving ALL HYPOTHETICALS IN God’s hands. All we have to go on is the writtenword. The rest is up to God. We don’t decide. I do think it is risky trying to fit hypotheticals into a doctrine and making the hypotheticals more important than they should be. I believe God would grant grace to a person killed on the way to the baptistry. He has the right to do that by the way. He just didn’t cover EVERY HYPOTHETICAL OUT THERE IN HIS WRITTEN WORD. Niw if the person had waited 10 years to get baptized, I would wonder WHY? I would say some serious error was involved in their teaching.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:29:06
Michael,
The lack of rational thought in that post is truly amazing.

Quote
Quote from: Michael
For John's baptism is a baptism of repentance, nothing more. The only purpose is that of repentance,
The purpose of John's baptism was not repentance. John's baptism was NOT for repentance. It was a baptism OF repentance. It was a baptism FOR the forgiveness of sins.

It was a baptism of what? Of Repentance sir. Isn't that what I said, "John's baptism is a baptism of repentance"? You apparently are not reading well sir and only quick to say it's a lack of rational thought. Quite a character you got there sir. Now, did I say for repentance or of repentance?

Now you say that the baptism of repentance is for the forgiveness of sins. Scriptures says "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Your statement is different from that of scriptures. The scriptures speaks of two things that John does here. One being the baptizing performed by John and the other the preaching. Of these two, which do you say was done by John whose goal is for the remission of sins, the baptizing or the preaching of a baptism of repentance?

One must realize and understand what a baptism of repentance is, that John preached for the remission of sins. Can you tell us what is this baptism of repentance that John preached?

Quote
Quote from: Michael
In Acts 19, notice what Paul said in v.2 "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Clearly, Paul tells us of the receiving of the HS to be in the believing. What he said in vv.3-5 points to believing in Christ, so that they may receive the HS, and not that in baptism, not of the water baptism that John the baptist performed nor that by the apostles and the disciples of Christ.

Again the lack of rational thinking is demonstrated.  When the disciples said to Paul, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit," he didn't question their belief, he questioned their baptism.  It was clear to Paul that they believed. It was also clear that something was awry in their baptism and therefore his question was  "Then what baptism did you receive?" .  When he heard their answer he immediately corrected that mistake.  "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."   Clearly their problem wasn't that they didn't believe, their problem was they hadn't been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Both John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are for the forgiveness of sin.  The difference between the two as that in baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the one being baptized not only receives the forgiveness of his sins, he also receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.


And what you say sir quickly point back at you.

The first question of Paul was "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Clearly, Paul relates the receiving of the HS to believing.

Their response to Paul was "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” They don't really know what Paul was asking them about receiving the HS.

Next thing Paul asked, “Into what then were you baptized?”, different from what you say "Then what baptism did you receive?"  Now we see that it is clear to Paul that they had been baptized, that he asked them that. Now, here Paul brought up the matter of their baptism. Learning that it was into John's baptism that they were baptized, notice what Paul said to them, “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.”  Paul here didn't say that John's baptism is lacking or what, but was telling them that they should believe in Jesus Christ. By that, we understand why these men had not received the HS, that is, because while they have been baptized with a baptism of repentance they understandably had not yet come to faith in Christ. And so, after hearing this from Paul that they should believe on Christ, they were baptized in the name of Christ, signifying their believing on Jesus Christ. This clearly puts the receiving of the HS in the believing, not really in the baptism. Though one's believing may well be involved in the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, this does not make the baptism per se as that by which the HS is given and received, but in the believing.

Today there are those who are baptized in the name of Christ, but don't receive the HS. These are they who do not truly believe in Christ or have been baptized knowing not that they should believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to receive the HS.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:32:28
Which means it has a lot to do with salvation. Counter to a lot of folk’s opinion here.

Jaime,

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:39:38
He is saved some nansecond after his faith response of believing, repenting, confessing, and submitting to baptism. You have been taught that baptism is only a symbol of what has happened. That is counter to scripture. Baptism in Christ’s follows believing and repentance name. We are told that upon repentance AND baptism, not repentance alone that our sins are remitted and we are conveyed the indwelling gift of the Spirit. Surely there is more hypotheticals vexing you to be included into a doctrine, but the answer is still the same.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:41:44
He is saved some nansecond after his faith response of believing, repenting, confessing, and submitting to baptism. You have been taught that baptism is only a symbol of what has happened. That is counter to scripture. Baptism in Christ’s follows believing and repentance name. We are told that upon repentance AND baptism, not repentance alone that our sins are remitted and we are conveyed the indwelling gift of the Spirit. Surely there is more hypotheticals vexing you, but the answer is still the same.
So if a new believer is martyred before being baptised, he goes to hell, in your doctrine, right?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:44:33
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 07:39:11
Quote
4WD:
And now you have to define what it means to believe.  Can you believe the gospel and yet reject the gospel and still be saved?  I don't think so.

Quote
Michael:
Believe the gospel and yet reject it? Needless to say, that could not be.

One cannot claim to believe Christ and yet reject Christ, could he?

Now, there is a difference between faith and obedience.
If there is a difference between faith and obedience  then why cannot one  believe but not obey?

Are you saying that there is no difference between faith and obedience?

Had you believed in Christ? I suppose you'd say yes. Now, had you not disobeyed Christ at some point in your life? I'm sure you had. But while you had, it does not mean you had not believed on Him? You did and do believe on Him, right? Only that, at some point you sinned?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:48:04
Farouk, I didn’t say that. I said that situation is in God’s hands. He didn’t address it in scripture. I make no judgements of one killed on the way to the baptistry.

Are you concurring that immediate baptism is the Biblical pattern? Is delaying justified or recommended in the teaching you have had?

Also why the endless hypotheticals? We certainly all should agree that doctrine is NOT built on hypotheticals.

It’s very similar to our founding document in our country, the Constitution. It absolutely DOES NOT address EVERY possible contingency. We do know what Is written, but those appointed to judge and interpret makes the rulings in the hypothetical contingencies that pop up. With salvation, God does. We don’t have an infinite checklist, only God handles the hypotheticals or what ifs.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:51:00
I didn’t say that. I said that situation is in God’s hands. He didn’t address it in scripture. I make no judgements of one killed on the way to the baptistry.

Are you concurring that immediate baptism is the Biblical pattern? Is delaying justified or recommended in the teaching you have had?
The c-word is part of the equation: sometimes those who ask for baptism simply don't have credibility.

What I also think is important to avoid is the idea of salvation-by-rite: this reverts to being a works-based religion (Ephesians 2.9).
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:56:21
If baptism is a rite oriented salvation, it is because of what GOD says he does in baptism, man only drops his clinched fists of resistance and humbly submits.

Read the story of Naaman’s healing. Was he healed by the waters if the Jordan or the fact he dipped 7 times as God said. Neither, God did the healing IN the mode he commanded. Same in baptism. It’s not a man originated rite.

Baptism alone does not save. It’s a total faith response, in the manner God’s inspired scripture prescribes.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 13:58:58
If baptism is a rite oriented salvation, it is because of what GOD says he does in baptism, man only drops his clinched fists of resistance and humbly submits.
Well, I'm sorry we must disagree about a rite-based salvation; it's works based. (Ephesians 2.9)

Faith is the key, according to my doctrine as I see it in Scripture (Hebrews 11). Being saved by a church's rite is not.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:02:43
Confessing with our lips is required. Is that works based? Muscle cells ARE involved. Of course not and neither is baptism. The only work in baptism is what GOD does. Other than that it is just getting wet.

We are baptised into CHRIST, not a church. 1Peter 3:21, Baptism is an appeal to God FOR a clean conscience. The very reason Paul was baptised in Acts 22, to wash away his sins calling upon the Lord.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:05:18
Confessing with our lips is required. Is that works based? Of course not and neither is baptism. The only work in baptism is what GOD does. Other than that it is just getting wet.

We are baptised into CHRIST, not a church.
So you are teaching baptismal regeneration. My reading of the new birth John 3 is that baptism is not mentioned. We shall have to disagree, evidently.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:08:04
I teach GOD regeneration IN baptism. Regeneration being the forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy spirit. The water does not do the regenerating.

Did Paul not arise to be baptized to wash away his sins, congruant with 1 Peter 3:21.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:10:05
I teach GOD regeneration IN baptism. Regeneration being the forgiveness of sin and thengift of the Holy spirit.
Clearly what you say is baptismal regeneration. We must disagree, then.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:10:55
Michael2012,
Quote
No Sir. I don't intend to invalidate any part of the statement sir. I was just trying to point out to you that it is the matter of believing or faith that is really that which tells whether one is saved or is condemned. Would you like me to cite scriptures? Had not Jesus said in John 3:18, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
All the more reason Michael. If since belief is the precursor to baptism, and if a person is condemned already who does not believe, then what is the necessity of saying he who is not baptized is condemned? he was already condemned. Unless you register at the University and take classes, you will not get your degree. If you don't register at the University you will not get your degree. If you show up to the necessary classes without registering, it won't count.

Quote
As with e.r.m., consider studying the following:

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Consider also this passage:

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
Verses that only express one aspect of getting saved don't exclude others. Neither of these passages address repentance either. That was addressed at a different time.

Quote
You asked "What is baptism doing there in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place?"

What else, but to be taken in connection to believing. For in baptism, one repents towards God and faith towards Christ. It is this repentance towards God and faith towards Christ that one receives forgiveness of sins. And this is why we read scriptures that says "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin".
to be taken in connection to believing

The sentence structure is different.
It words it like Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,...
It's not a 'tag along' to belief, like a hang nail. That would be more like, be baptized to show your belief, which saves you. or baptism of... -belief for the forgiveness of sin,
which puts the emphasis on belief. Jesus put the emphasis on both belief and baptism and he put baptism on the closer end to "will be saved". Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,....
The sentence doesn't support what you suggest and it doesn't explain why Jesus put baptism in the getting saved statement. The simplest and truest answer is is that it's part of getting saved.

Quote
One would ask, would one who repents towards God and faith towards Christ, be forgiven of his sins, even when he is not yet baptized, or before he is baptized, or when he is baptized at a later time, or when there is no time to be baptized?
I defer to my and Jamie's previous answers on this question.

Quote
And I forgot to add, Paul was saved because he repented and believed in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes they have done a fabulous job, but answering what? The fabulous thing that they can do is to listen and try to understand what Ananias said to Paul. It was an unconditional election and appointment by God of Paul. If they don't see that as the salvation of Paul, who himself confessed and considers himself as the chief of sinners, but insist that Paul was saved because he was baptized with water, then they have closed their eyes to the truth that salvation belongs to God and is the work of God and is accomplished by God.
Despite being elected by God as His chosen instrument, he was still with his sins,  last I checked, one is not saved until their sins are forgiven. This was addressed to you by others in their fabulous response, and you have not offered anyting to make that go away.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:12:55
Farouk God regenerates and he specified in scripture that HE does that in baptism. God regeneration is NOT baptismal regeneration. It’s 100% God. What are YOU saying? And more importantly WHY?

Baptismal regeneration implies it’s the water that is important and what does the regenerating. Not saying that at all. Water is soiritually inert.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:16:59
Farouk God regenerates and he specified in scripture that HE does that in baptism. God regeneration is NOT baptismal regeneration. It’s 100% God. What are YOU saying? And more importantly WHY?
In the main, Bible based evangelical Christians hold that salvation is by grace, through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2.8-9); the great passage by the Lord Jesus Himself about the new birth - regeneration - does not mention baptism, which is a symbol, a figure.

So we will have to disagree, Friend.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:21:22
We don’t disagree, I too fully ascribe to salvation being by grace through faith in Christ. We were talking about our scriptural faith responses, friend. We don’t have to disagree if the Bible is our guide. God is not the author of confusion, especially on milk issues.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:23:47
We don’t disagree, I too fully ascribe to salvation being by grace through faith in Christ. We were talking about our scriptural faith responses, friend. We don’t have to disagree if the Bible is our guide.
It seems we do disagree, Friend, if you mean this, above: "Farouk God regenerates and he specified in scripture that HE does that in baptism."
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:26:58
It's best if I moved on from this thread.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:27:14
faroukfarouk,
Quote
In the main, Bible based evangelical Christians hold that salvation is by grace, through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2.8-9); the great passage by the Lord Jesus Himself about the new birth - regeneration - does not mention baptism, which is a symbol, a figure.
Ephesians 2.8-9 doesn't list baptism as a work and does not identify baptism as a symbol, a figure. That's the non-Bible based evangelical part. And no, 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't either.  It says Noah's water is the symbol or figure of baptism, it doesn't say baptism is a symbol or figure of anything. It has neither the words nor the sentence structure that says "baptism symbolizes something." There's nowhere in the entire New Testament that says baptism in Jesus's name's purpose is to symbolize anyting.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:31:12
So in Acts 2:38 did the 3000 not get regenerated by having their sins forgiven and getting the gift of the Holy spirit upon repentance and baptism as Peter instructed?

Some would say they were regenerated when they were pricked in their hearts with Godly sorrow for what they had done.

 Godly sorrow LEADS to repentance and repentance leads to salvation. The 3000 were regenerated by God’s hand after repentance and baptism in Christ’s name.

Let’s discuss and not just say we disagree.......friend.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 14:37:40
Why would it be best to move on Farouk. I am not afraid of being wrong. I have been many times.

Do you only evangelize people that agree with you? Me and Erm should make great fodder for a mind change.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 15:15:32
faroukfarouk,
Is it remotely possible that the evangelical paradigm you've bought into may not match up with scripture at some point? Have you ever seen a discrepancy (and not just in salvation. I mean any discrepancy, e.g. the nativity, the rapture being right around the corner, how they handle conflict, anything) or is evangelicalism and the Bible one and the same to you? Thank you.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 15:31:20
faroukfarouk,

Even if you choose not to respond, I hope you are still reading the comments. ::smile::

Regarding works, any time Paul and others say that works on our part are excluded from salvation, then it has to do with those efforts that originate in man and are an attempt to accomplish salvation by our own power. This can include works of the law of Moses, which Paul writes about with much contempt when to comes to our salvation. It can even include any good deeds and efforts with honest motives, but still have no salvific value as far as God is concerned. If He didn't command it, then it has zero value for our salvation. Ephesians 2:9 is referring to man-based efforts to earn salvation, as opposed to our being saved by God's grace working through our faith in Him.

Also, if God says to do a thing in order to be saved, then the doing of that thing is not a work, as defined and excluded by Paul. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction (for example between Mark 16:16 and Ephesians 2:9). What is a person to do when God asks him why he didn't do what he was told to do to receive God's gift of grace? Is he going to answer to God that he didn't want to be saved by works?

The Israelites had to cross the dry seabed to be saved from slavery to Egypt. Were they saved by their works, or wholly by God's grace and power? Nobody in their right mind would attribute any saving power to the obedience of the Israelites. God did all the work and paved the way for the Israelites to obey a command that would further glorify God for the salvation He had accomplished for them. Jesus did all of the work for our salvation, but He commands that we submit by faith to baptism which gives Him the glory for what He accomplished for us. Baptism rejoices in the power and grace of God, not in self.

This is the main reason I wonder about folks who try so desperately to not accept what God says about baptism. Jesus said in Mark 16:15-16, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved..." He commanded this for the whole world, for every creature (person). Why not just accept it and not try to find ways to eliminate baptism from His words? Baptism did not originate in man and it is not a man-based attempt to find salvation apart from God. Jesus commanded it, and for that reason, so believe Him.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 15:37:31
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
         but according to his mercy he saved us,
         BY the WASHING of REGENERATION,
         and RENEWING of the Holy SPIRIT;

Washing is
g3067. loutro/n loutron, loo-tron´; from 3068; a bath, i.e. (figuratively), BAPTISM: — washing.
g3068. louo, loo´-o; a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): — wash.

Regeneration
3824.  paliggenesia, pal-ing-ghen-es-ee´-ah; from 3825 and 1078; (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), i.e. (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specially, Messianic restoration: — regeneration.

OUR spirits are RETURNED to their ORIGINAL condition when they are RENOVATED by God.

Renewing is:
341. ajnakaino/w anakainoo, an-ak-ahee-no´-o; from 303 and a derivative of 2537; to renovate: — renew.
342. ajnakai÷nwsiß anakainosis, an-ak-ah´-ee-no-sis; from 341; renovation: — renewing.

The renewing is OF the holy spirit and not BY the holy spirit. We were born and god gave us A holy spirit because it came FROM god.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent,
       and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
       for [in order to[ the remission of sins,
       AND ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

When we are baptized our UNholy spirit becomes A holy spirit or in 1 Peter 3:21 BAPTISM SAVES US because we REQUEST A good conscience, consciousness the same as A holy spirit-- ours.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 16:04:16
WE TALK A LOT ABOUT FAITH BEING ABLE TO HEAL THE SICK OR MULTIPLY OUR SEED MONEY. HOWEVER, BAPTISM IS ONE OF THOSE WAYS GOD HAS SAID:

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort,
       saying, SAVE YOURSELVES from this untoward generation.

The Red Sea is one of those PROPHETIC PATTERNS which those who mock as legalists those who obey the direct command of Jesus.

Ex. 14:10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes,
        and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them;
        and they were sore afraid:
        and the children of Israel cried out unto the Lord.
Ex. 14:11 And they said unto Moses,
         Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness?
        wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?
Ex. 14:12 Is not this the WORD that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying,
        Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians?
              For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians,   
              than that we should die in the wilderness.

THIS IS WHAT FAITH ONLY MEANS: THEY DO NOT COME TO THE LIGHT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO EXPOSE THEMSELVES TO INESCAPABLE DEATH--they think.

MOSES PREACHED "FAITH ONLY

Ex. 14:13 And Moses said unto the people,
        Fear ye not, STAND STILL, and see the salvation OF the Lord,
        which he will shew to you to day:
        for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day,
        ye shall see them again no more for ever.
Ex. 14:14 The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

GOD RESPONDS TO FAITH ONLY WHINING:

Ex. 14:15  And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore CRIEST THOU UNTO ME?

Moses apparently wanted to HOLD AN ASSEMBLY and just wait for a spirit to move or inform them.

h6817.   tsaw-ak´; a primitive root; to shriek; (by implication) to proclaim (an assembly):—
    x at all, call together, cry (out), gather (selves) (together).

       Is. 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth;
              I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
       Is. 42:2 He shall not CRY, nor lift up [SING Paul's self-pleasure in Romans 15]],
             nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.

THE OPERATIVE WORDS ARE READ OR SPEAK:

        Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward:
Ex. 14:16 But LIFT UP THEY ROD
        and STRETCH out thine hand over the sea,
        and DIVIDE IT it: and the children of Israel
        SHALL go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 16:56:20
faroukfarouk,
Quote
It's best if I moved on from this thread.
I hadn't seen this. I can respect that.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 09:27:52
Any soteriology requires a work of God on each individual sinner's heart before that sinner can be able to have faith in Christ, rather than the sinner having the freewill to choose, is one that actually puts the blame for the condemnation of any on God if He does not do such a work in them.

If God wants all saved, and I believe He does (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9), then to the extent that it takes such a work for somebody to be saved, shouldn't God work thusly in the hearts of all?


We don't get to question what God does nor believe what we think He should and must do, as if we have the wisdom and mind of God. What we ought to do is believe what God revealed to us of Himself and of His work. One of the things He revealed of Himself is that He desire all man to be saved. But also revealed to us is that not all will be saved.

Borrowing the words of Paul:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?”
“Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”

For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 09:37:27
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 10:57:40
No need for baptism? What baptism in particular? Are you referring to the baptism with water or baptism with the HS?

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?
The repentant thief on the cross believed and went to paradise, without being baptised.

I know. And of course, you are referring to the rite of the baptism with water.

No one is forgiven of his sins without repenting towards God and faith in Christ. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 09:46:18
The thief on the cross argument has been debunked almost since ancient times. How come you are still using it? Are you familiar with ex post facto? Why would the thief on the cross be expected to fulfill a command, namely baptism "in Jesus's name", which had not yet been given at the time of his crucifixion? Only the people who were around when the command was first given, which was after Jesus resurrection, and those thereafter would be expected to follow that command. How come you don't put two and two together with the time frame?

You are right, baptism is a command, unlike repentance towards God and faith in Christ.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 09:49:17
Michael,
Quote
Quote
Does God forgives only in baptism?

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?
The Bible says this is where it happens Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:4-7, (repent and believe is "part" of it, not all of it) so this is what we teach.

What is your answer to the question then? Can you say it direct to the point?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 09:53:40
Quote
Does God forgives only in baptism?

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?

Michael, all I can tell you is there is NO reason to parse baptism away from salvation. Who cares what nanosecond it occurs if baptism is immediate as the Bible teaches. The first century folks would have been aghast at the modern efforts to decide if salvation occurred prerepentance, post confession, pre-baptism, post baptism or while under the water. It’s ludicrous to parse it. Salvation involves believing, it involves repentance and confession and yes it involves baptism. All inclusive of what we are instructed in the Bible as our faith response.

If someone clings relentlessly to the believe verses, I say yes belief is necessary along with the other things scripture CUMULATIVELY says is required. (If not why not?)

MILK OF THE WORD STUFF. We need to get this and move on to the meat.


So, can you tell us what is your answer to the simple question then? Can you say it direct to the point?

Will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:01:07
What reasonable excuse would a believer have to remain unbaptized? Did that ever happen in the NT? Of course the thief doesn’t count as Erm has already shown. Immediate baptism IS the Biblical pattern, if that means anything and I submit it DOES.

No one here I suppose is suggesting that a believer should not be baptized nor be baptized later. The point is in the question:  When one does repent and believe in God and Christ, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:05:40
You are right, baptism is a command, unlike repentance towards God and faith in Christ.
You are wrong repentance is a command just as faith is a command.

Luke 24:47 (KJV)
47  And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
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 17:30 (KJV)
30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Just as the many scriptures teach one must believe but I know you already know them so no need to post them.

See you read the scriptures but do not understand what you read because those above proved your statement that repentance and faith is not a command.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:19:26
It’s similar to the modern day hypothetical of dying in a car crash on thenway to get naptized. I am leaving ALL HYPOTHETICALS IN god’s hands. All we have to go on is thebwritten word. The rest is upbto God. We don’t decide. I do think itnis risky trying to fit hypotheticals into a doctrine and making the hypotheticals more important than they should be. I believe God would grant grace to a person killed on the way to the baptistry. He has the right to do that by the way. He just didn’t cover EVERY HYPOTHETICAL OUT THERE IN HIS WRITTEN WORD. Niw if the person had waited 10 years to get baptized, I would wonder WHY? I would say some serious error was involved in their teaching.

So you leave the HYPOTHETICALS in God's hand. And in whose hand then do you leave the NON HYPOTHETICALS? Man's or God's?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:26:19
He is saved some nansecond after his faith response of believing, repenting, confessing, and submitting to baptism. You have been taught that baptism is only a symbol of what has happened. That is counter to scripture. Baptism in Christ’s follows believing and repentance name. We are told that upon repentance AND baptism, not repentance alone that our sins are remitted and we are conveyed the indwelling gift of the Spirit. Surely there is more hypotheticals vexing you to be included into a doctrine, but the answer is still the same.

Faith response of believing? Of repenting?

Repenting isn't a faith response, but is a change of mind and heart. It may be towards God or the opposite.

Believing isn't a faith response either. And you know that. I suppose I don't have to explain that.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:41:15
No one here I suppose is suggesting that a believer should not be baptized nor be baptized later. The point is in the question:  When one does repent and believe in God and Christ, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?

Michael let me answer your question with a question. Do believe what scriptures say? I will let the scriptures do the talking because I admittedly do not know the mind of God but only what he revealed in his word can you say the same and let the word answer your question?
The question is when is the forgiveness of sin recorded as being done. Before baptism or through baptism?

Do we agree that before the cross the coming kingdom was to be preached setting the way for the kingdom to be in place? If so we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was all recorded of the kingdom to come. In Acts we read that the kingdom has come and we read in Acts 2 of how one is to enter into the kingdom.

Peter preaches the resurrected Christ for the first time in opening the doors to the kingdom that has come. In so he answers sthe question of what one must do to enter into the kingdom

Acts 2:38-39 (KJV)
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.
39  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Nothing hidden here it is clearly spelled out One must repent (command) and be baptized in Christ name (why) for the forgiveness of sin (then) you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Could not get any more clear could it?

But as we told you this is backed by more scripture it is not a stand alone.

Acts 22:16 (KJV)
16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

See this backs up Acts 2:38 saying the same the baptism in Christ name is for the forgiveness of sin and how one calls on the name of the Lord.

That is not the only one that backs it up look at Romans 6

Romans 6:3-4 (KJV)
3   Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

You see it clearly states that it is in the baptism in Christ name that we are transformed from dead in sin to alive in Christ the new birth.

Romans 6:16-18 (KJV)
16  Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17  But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18  Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

You see Paul says that it was in the baptism in Christ name that the transformation took place. He backs that in other letters to the church this is not a stand alone scripture but has backing from others.

Galatians 3:27 (KJV)
27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

See again Paul says that it was in the baptism in Christ name where one has put on Christ backing the above scriptures.

Colossians 2:12-13 (KJV)
12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Again Paul testifying that in baptism ones sin are forgiven and the new birth take place.

How many more times does one need to be told. The bible has answered your question for you will you take it for its word or do you want to debate the scriptures that gives the only recorded answer you are seeking. We can not go above or beyond what is recorded. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:50:43
Quote

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Consider also this passage:

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Verses that only express one aspect of getting saved don't exclude others. Neither of these passages address repentance either. That was addressed at a different time.


And what made you think that these verses are lacking?

Yes, these passages does not explicitly talk about repentance. But repentance, if you just open wide your eyes, is all over these passages.

Now, with regards baptism, no matter how wide you may open your eyes, you won't see it there. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 11:05:35
Michael, repenting is most certainly a faith response just as confessing with our lips and baptism.

In the first century all faith responses were immediate per scripture. The modern idea of delaying baptism is not modeled in scripture.

We are told in scripture what happens with the non-hypotheticals. What happens in the hypotheticals is up to God. His inspired scripture did not address every hypothetical. We know from scripture one is saved if he believe and is baptized. We know that an unbeliever is condemned. Scripture does not address an unbaptized believer. It would not have been contemplated in the first century.

Baptism is not a “rite” invented by man. God chose it as a meaningful faith response just as he did repentance, and confessing with our lips.

And remember, there is no reason to look for a single verse to include all aspects of salvation. We MUST take all scripture cumultively, which is why we were given scripture. The believe verses do not trump all other salvation verses. The repent verses do not trump all other salvation verses, etc. if all salvation verses don’t apply, then I see no basis for this discussion or the New Testament as a whole for that matter.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 11:35:02
So you leave the HYPOTHETICALS in God's hand. And in whose hand then do you leave the NON HYPOTHETICALS? Man's or God's?

God of course saves the Non Hypotheticals - by his prescribed way in scripture. We can read what he prescribed. He didn't address the Hypotheticals in scripture as I have said, which is why their fate is up to Him. A prime example of an age old hypothetical is the quadriplegic stranded in middle of the Sahara Desert. Not addressed in scripture, therefore up to God and his will.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 11:45:53

Verses that only express one aspect of getting saved don't exclude others. Neither of these passages address repentance either. That was addressed at a different time.



And what made you think that these verses are lacking?

Yes, these passages does not explicitly talk about repentance. But repentance, if you just open wide your eyes, is all over these passages.

Now, with regards baptism, no matter how wide you may open your eyes, you won't see it there. 

Michael I beg to differ on your statement that those passages does not speak of baptism  if you open your eyes they do just as they speak of repentance as you said.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life

How was Jesus lifted up? Isn't it a direct reference to the cross, and where did Paul say we meet Jesus at the cross? Hint look at Romans  it is in the baptism in Christ name where we are buried with Christ and rise new in Christ. The born again experience.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Here again How did God give his son to redeem man was it not the cross that we have already covered above?

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Again it can not be with out the cross and we have answered this with scripture.
Michael I beg to differ on your statement that those passages does not speak of baptism  if you open your eyes they do just as they speak of repentance as you said.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 15:06:07
Michael2012,
Quote
And what made you think that these verses are lacking?
Yes, these passages does not explicitly talk about repentance. But repentance, if you just open wide your eyes, is all over these passages.

Now, with regards baptism, no matter how wide you may open your eyes, you won't see it there.
Eye of the beholder, huh? Isn't that convenient? Sorry, but the written word carries more weight than inferences. John 12:47-50, 2 Peter 1:20-21.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 19:47:30
Michael2012,
Quote
What is your answer to the question then? Can you say it direct to the point?
My answer to the question is that the Bible doesn't say when the precise moment is, down to the second, just that it happens then. The same would apply for any other alleged method of getting saved. The best description I've ever heard is that salvation ultimately occurs in the mind of God, because He's the one who forgives us. So to know when this precisely happens in the mind of God is beyond our knowledge.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:07:23
Michael2012,My answer to the question is that the Bible doesn't say when the precise moment is, down to the second, just that it happens then. The same would apply for any other alleged method of getting saved. The best description I've ever heard is that salvation ultimately occurs in the mind of God, because He's the one who forgives us. So to know when this precisely happens in the mind of God is beyond our knowledge.

This is an interesting answer and true to an extent. I like it cause it is safe and keeps down the attack on ones belief. I think that it leaves to much room that the bible makes more clear than what we want to accept. This leaves it open for the argument of it can be when one believes only and everything else is just a faith response from the salvation by faith only.

It is true that the bible does not come out and say that salvation happened at this precise moment but it does make it a little more clear as to when it appears to have happened if one will take the bible for its word. Paul narrowed it down more than we are willing to do in his letter to the Romans. See Romans chapter six where Paul teaches when the new birth happened. He goes in detail letting one know just when one is transformed from dead to sin to alive in Christ (the born again new birth). That is as close to finding the answer to such a question as is recorded. He backed it with Colossians 2. I feel the bible does answer this question we just don't like the answer.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:17:03
Another way of putting it would be:

What is the person relying on?

The work of Christ at the Cross, by faith?

or the application of a rite?

(They are deeply distinct.)
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:18:12
yogi bear,
Thank you.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:29:00
faroukfarouk,
Quote
Another way of putting it would be:

What is the person relying on?

The work of Christ at the Cross, by faith?

or the application of a rite?

(They are deeply distinct.
Welcome back Farouk. Relying on the work of Christ at the cross, by faith is evangelical vocabulary. And we can't use one's belief systems rhetoric as evidence. We must come forward with scripture. With regard to getting saved, no one in the Bible referred to relying on Jesus work on the cross as a method of getting saved. They spoke about Jesus on the cross dying for our sins, they did not refer to the method entitled "I rely on Jesus on the cross for my salvation." Nor in the Bible, do they ever refer to baptism in Jesus's name as a rite. That is again evangelical vocabulary. If we do indeed rely on Jesus by faith, we also rely on everything he said about getting saved, "including" his sacrifice, and including the response he expects from us.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:34:52
faroukfarouk,Welcome back Farouk. Relying on the work of Christ at the cross, by faith is evangelical vocabulary. And we can't use one's belief systems rhetoric as evidence. We must come forward with scripture. With regard to getting saved, no one in the Bible referred to relying on Jesus work on the cross as a method of getting saved. They spoke about Jesus on the cross dying for our sins, they did not refer to the method entitled "I rely on Jesus on the cross for my salvation." Nor in the Bible, do they ever refer to baptism in Jesus's name as a rite. That is again evangelical vocabulary. If we do indeed rely on Jesus by faith, we also rely on everything he said about getting saved, "including" his sacrifice, and including the response he expects from us.
I'm afraid I can't relate to the way you are using terminology. Some of us use other languages as well in presenting the faith, and to deny the truth content of paraphrased Scripture verses in preaching - as so many preachers do - especially when expressing it in other languages, is not something I am comfortable with, sorry. I don't see baptismal regeneration - or some linguistically fluid form of it - in Scripture, in any case. So I think we would only go round and round in circles on this one.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:40:57
farouk, Please explain what Paul is saying in Romans 6 if he is not saying that in the baptism of Christ the new birth happens? Is he not saying it is there that one dead in sin becomes alive in Christ ? Is that not the message he is presenting through out the whole chapter 6 in his letter to the Romans? If not then please enlighten me to just what it is he is saying.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:47:17
farouk, Please explain what Paul is saying in Romans 6 if he is not saying that in the baptism of Christ the new birth happens? Is he not saying it is there that one dead in sin becomes alive in Christ ? Is that not the message he is presenting through out the whole chapter 6 in his letter to the Romans? If not then please enlighten me to just what it is he is saying.
I understand baptism in Romans 6 to be the symbolism of trusting by faith in the reality of the work of Christ that saves the believer. I don't define baptism as solely and uniquely producing the faith requirement in the sight of God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:47:24
He not only told that to the Romans he also repeated it to the Colossians see here

Colossians 2:10-13 (KJV)
10  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

How much more clear does it have to be said to understand that God transforms one from dead in sin to alive in Christ through the baptism in Christ name.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:49:38
I understand baptism in Romans 6 to be the symbolism of trusting by faith in the reality of the work of Christ that saves the believer. I don't define baptism as solely and uniquely producing the faith requirement in the sight of God.
I realize that is your understanding but it is not what is recorded it is recorded that it is a reality work that God is doing through the baptism it just does not read as you say but what God is doing.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:54:42
He not only told that to the Romans he also repeated it to the Colossians see here

Colossians 2:10-13 (KJV)
10  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

How much more clear does it have to be said to understand that God transforms one from dead in sin to alive in Christ through the baptism in Christ name.

Going right back to the experience of the church at Pentecost onwards, in 1 Corinthians 12.13 Paul uses the term to refer to the work of the Holy Spirit, not to water, in the new birth.:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body".

In Romans 2.29 Paul further uses the term circumcision - as he does in Colossians - to refer to the work of repentance by the Spirit working in the heart, and he does not even mention baptism (which one would have thought that he would have done if he really were teaching that it's water baptism that regeneration supposedly happens).

I don't think we are going to agree on this.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 21:56:40
I realize that is your understanding but it is not what is recorded it is recorded that it is a reality work that God is doing through the baptism it just does not read as you say but what God is doing.
Are you from a Church of Christ background, maybe? or similar.

For myself, I am independent undenominational.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 22:02:32
Yes but lets look at what Paul says about it. He already said that in baptism in Christ name one is transformed from dead in sin to alive in Christ that is his whole point in Romans 6. I see you think it does not mean that the new birth happens then but Paul says it is then that it happens read on down to verse 17

Romans 6:17-18 (KJV)
17  But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18  Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

  That form of doctrine he is talking about in this context is the baptism in Christ name just as this whole chapter deals with and he echoes it to the Colssians. It is recorded for us to see what we do with the recorded word is up to us.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 22:03:52
Are you from a Church of Christ background, maybe? or similar.

For myself, I am independent undenominational.
Yes I am but that has no bearing on what is recorded in scripture if I am misguide please show me my error in reading these verses.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 22:07:45
Yes but lets look at what Paul says about it. He already said that in baptism in Christ name one is transformed from dead in sin to alive in Christ that is his whole point in Romans 6. I see you think it does not mean that the new birth happens then but Paul says it is then that it happens read on down to verse 17

Romans 6:17-18 (KJV)
17  But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18  Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

  That form of doctrine he is talking about in this context is the baptism in Christ name just as this whole chapter deals with and he echoes it to the Colssians. It is recorded for us to see what we do with the recorded word is up to us.
I don't see that 'obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto', which you quote, refers uniquely to water baptism. Right at the beginning of Romans and right at the end again, Paul uses similar phrases: 'the obedience of faith'; 'obedience to the faith' and does not even mention baptism (which one would have though he would have done if he really were teaching that water baptism regenerates).

Like I suggestion, I don't think we are going to agree on this.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 22:20:43
context my friend what is the context of Romans 6??
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 22:26:25
context my friend what is the context of Romans 6??
I don't see even from Romans 6 that 'obedience from the heart' must refer only and essentially to water baptism. We are not going to agree on this, I don't think.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 23:23:39
Going right back to the experience of the church at Pentecost onwards, in 1 Corinthians 12.13 Paul uses the term to refer to the work of the Holy Spirit, not to water, in the new birth.:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body".

In Romans 2.29 Paul further uses the term circumcision - as he does in Colossians - to refer to the work of repentance by the Spirit working in the heart, and he does not even mention baptism (which one would have thought that he would have done if he really were teaching that it's water baptism that regeneration supposedly happens).

I don't think we are going to agree on this.

It might help us all to remember that the word baptism is a transliteration of a Greek word that simply means immersion. The word is extremely common in the Greek language and it can refer to all sorts of stuff, like the sinking of a ship and the immersion of a cloth into a liquid dye. It can also have symbolic meanings, such as when Jesus spoke of a baptism, an immersion, He has to undergo, referring to His being immersed in sufferings leading up to the cross.

I mention this only because in 1 Corinthians 13 Paul was simply letting the church in Corinth know that the Spirit immersed them into the body of Christ, that the Spirit placed them in the body. The transliterated word baptized is not at all referring to the same thing as what Paul is talking about in Romans 6 or Colossians 2. It would be a grave error of exegesis to make the word baptism mean the same thing and have the same application across its different uses in different contexts. In other words, if it means water immersion in one context, it would be a mistake to make it mean water immersion everywhere else, or if it means Holy Spirit immersion in one context, then it would be a mistake to make it mean the same everywhere else.

What I am saying is that to reject the proposed meaning of baptism in Romans 6 and Colossians 2 because of how the same word is used in 1 Corinthians 13 is a mistake. I have even seen people try to make Jesus' use of immersion when talking about His sufferings be the main meaning of baptism in Romans 6, which is a seriously misguided view.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 23:27:06
It might help us all to remember that the word baptism is a transliteration of a Greek word that simply means immersion. The word is extremely common in the Greek language and it can refer to all sorts of stuff, like the sinking of a ship and the immersion of a cloth into a liquid dye. It can also have symbolic meanings, such as when Jesus spoke of a baptism, an immersion, He has to undergo, referring to His being immersed in sufferings leading up to the cross.

I mention this only because in 1 Corinthians 13 Paul was simply letting the church in Corinth know that the Spirit immersed them into the body of Christ, that the Spirit placed them in the body. The transliterated word baptized is not at all referring to the same thing as what Paul is talking about in Romans 6 or Colossians 2. It would be a grave error of exegesis to make the word baptism mean the same thing and have the same application across its different uses in different contexts. In other words, if it means water immersion in one context, it would be a mistake to make it mean water immersion everywhere else, or if it means Holy Spirit immersion in one context, then it would be a mistake to make it mean the same everywhere else.

What I am saying is that to reject the proposed meaning of baptism in Romans 6 and Colossians 2 because of how the same word is used in 1 Corinthians 13 is a mistake. I have even seen people try to make Jesus' use of immersion when talking about His sufferings be the main meaning of baptism in Romans 6, which is a seriously misguided view.
But notwithstanding your comments, it's difficult for me to see that 'obedience from the heart' in Romans 6 refers only and solely to water baptism.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 23:42:53
But notwithstanding your comments, it's difficult for me to see that 'obedience from the heart' in Romans 6 refers only and solely to water baptism.

I believe immersion is included, but, like you, I don't believe it is the exclusive meaning of that phrase. Rather, that heart obedience is the giving of ones self fully to Christ so as to be set free from sin and become His slave. This includes repentance from evil works and the commitment to live for Him in prayerfulness and service to others.

I believe it has to include immersion because "obedience from the heart" (verse 17) results in the same thing that immersion results in, according to verses 6, 11, and 18.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 23:46:18
I believe immersion is included, but, like you, I don't believe it is the exclusive meaning of that phrase. Rather, that heart obedience is the giving of ones self fully to Christ so as to be set free from sin and become His slave. This includes repentance from evil works and the commitment to live for Him in prayerfulness and service to others.

I believe it has to include immersion because "obedience from the heart" (verse 17) results in the same thing that immersion results in, according to verses 6, 11, and 18.
Read in its entirety, I don't see the passage as teaching regeneration from water baptism.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 00:02:34
In Romans 6 Paul starts addressing a point he made at the end of chapter 5, saying that where sin increased, grace abounded all the more. Since some people might have the idea that they can choose to continue in sin so that God's grace may abound all the more, Paul saw the need to put a stop to that kind of faulty reasoning. Paul said, "No way!" Now why can we not do that? Paul said it is because we have died to sin. Simply put, if we purposefully died to sin, we cannot then purposefully live in it any longer.

How we died to sin is the point of these early verses chapter 6. Skip to verse 7. Paul says that he who has died is freed from sin. So, whatever Paul says is how we died to sin is the same thing as saying how we were freed from sin. Being freed from sin is salvation. In verse 8 he describes it as having died with Christ so as to live with Him. How can this not be talking about salvation from sin and being made alive in Christ? Of course Paul is describing exactly that.

Here are a few questions:
In verse 4, how can a person be said to be walking in newness of live, or in a new life, if he has not been crucified together with Christ in immersion? As I read it, the new life is one where I am freed from sin, no longer its slave. In that case, the old life prior to immersion is where I am still dead in my sins; I am not yet saved.

In verses 5 and 6, how is the old self, the old man, crucified with Christ? I read it as through being immersed into Christ's death. I cannot expect to believe I am walking in a new life, freed from sin, if my old self has not been crucified together with Christ. In addition, Paul says that is how the body of sin is done away with so that we are no longer slaves to sin.

The honest question at this point would be, "What does immersion mean in this context?"

If I want to know, 1) how I am to be immersed into Christ Jesus and into His death, 2) how I am to be buried together with Him through immersion, and thus 3) how I am to be united with Him in the likeness of His death and 4) how my old self is to be crucified together with Him, then that honest question has to be answered. That immersion is the difference between still being a slave to sin and being set free and walking in a new life.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 00:05:31
In Romans 6 Paul starts addressing a point he made at the end of chapter 5, saying that where sin increased, grace abounded all the more. Since some people might have the idea that they can choose to continue in sin so that God's grace may abound all the more, Paul saw the need to put a stop to that kind of faulty reasoning. Paul said, "No way!" Now why can we not do that? Paul said it is because we have died to sin. Simply put, if we purposefully died to sin, we cannot then purposefully live in it any longer.

How we died to sin is the point of these early verses chapter 6. Skip to verse 7. Paul says that he who has died is freed from sin. So, whatever Paul says is how we died to sin is the same thing as saying how we were freed from sin. Being freed from sin is salvation. In verse 8 he describes it as having died with Christ so as to live with Him. How can this not be talking about salvation from sin and being made alive in Christ? Of course Paul is describing exactly that.

Here are a few questions:
In verse 4, how can a person be said to be walking in newness of live, or in a new life, if he has not been crucified together with Christ in immersion? As I read it, the new life is one where I am freed from sin, no longer its slave. In that case, the old life prior to immersion is where I am still dead in my sins; I am not yet saved.

In verses 5 and 6, how is the old self, the old man, crucified with Christ? I read it as through being immersed into Christ's death. I cannot expect to believe I am walking in a new life, freed from sin, if my old self has not been crucified together with Christ. In addition, Paul says that is how the body of sin is done away with so that we are no longer slaves to sin.

The honest question at this point would be, "What does immersion mean in this context?"

If I want to know, 1) how I am to be immersed into Christ Jesus and into His death, 2) how I am to be buried together with Him through immersion, and thus 3) how I am to be united with Him in the likeness of His death and 4) how my old self is to be crucified together with Him, then that honest question has to be answered. That immersion is the difference between still being a slave to sin and being set free and walking in a new life.
Put it this way, then: I don't see how, reading the passage in its entirety, and comparing Scripture with Scripture, regeneration is supposedly from water immersion.

Nor would most evangelical Bible readers.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 00:11:14
Put it this way, then: I don't see how, reading the passage in its entirety, and comparing Scripture with Scripture, regeneration is supposedly from water immersion.

Nor would most evangelical Bible readers.

I did ask the question, "What does immersion mean in this context?"

I know what believe it doesn't mean, but that doesn't answer the question. Oh, and the question is here for everybody. ::smile::
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 00:16:46
I did ask the question, "What does immersion mean in this context?"

I know what believe it doesn't mean, but that doesn't answer the question. Oh, and the question is here for everybody. ::smile::
If it means, by what power does one rely on walking in newness of life? how am I united with Christ? it is by faith through the Spirit, and according to my reading this cannot be by mere water immersion, which is a symbol.

Most evangelical Bible believers would agree also.

Where the Lord Jesus said in John 3: "Ye must be born again", it is hard to see that He supposedly meant, "Get baptised and you will be regenerated".
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 00:52:50
Farouk,
Quote
I understand baptism in Romans 6 to be the symbolism of trusting by faith in the reality of the work of Christ that saves the believer.
I don't understand. Are you saying that Romans 6 is water baptism symbolizing other stuff? Or are you saying that the use of the word baptism is symbolic, and not actual baptism?

Quote
I don't define baptism as solely and uniquely producing the faith requirement in the sight of God.
Farouk, I'm sorry, this is a novice evengelical argument. This is a straw man argument, debunking something that no one has ever proposed. I don't know why you're making this argument when no one ever said that baptism produces faith. And yet, we've heard this argument before. It's novice.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 01:07:31
faroukfarouk,
Quote
I'm afraid I can't relate to the way you are using terminology. Some of us use other languages as well in presenting the faith, and to deny the truth content of paraphrased Scripture verses in preaching - as so many preachers do - especially when expressing it in other languages, is not something I am comfortable with, sorry.
I've used other languages as well in presenting the faith. The issue here is not denying truth content in paraphrased scriptures. The issue here is denying falsehood content in additions made to scripture. Referring to baptism in Jesus's name as a rite is not paraphrasing, it is adding an evangelical concept and a mindset to the Bible that did not exist at the time. It's inserting an evangelical way of thinking and paradigm into first century Christianity, where does it not belong. We rely on God and His word in baptism. If you are to try to debunk whatever we say, which is completely your right, the only weapons you have are scriptures. Evangelical catchphrases don't qualify.

Quote
I don't see baptismal regeneration - or some linguistically fluid form of it - in Scripture, in any case. So I think we would only go round and round in circles on this one.
This is another strawman argument. As others have said, we see God regeneration at baptism, not baptismal regeneration. You can see this in Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16. No linguistically fluid form of it necessary, just the plain text of scripture.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 01:32:28
we see God regeneration at baptism, not baptismal regeneration.

Most Bible based Christians - whether called evangelical or by whatever name - would probably find the claim of distinction between these terms 'God regeneration at baptism' and 'baptismal regeneration' confusing.

I find both concepts - to my humble mind indicating much the same thing - hard to grasp in the light of the many NT passages about faith in the Lord Jesus where water immersion is not even mentioned.

I don't think we are going to agree here.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 01:55:34
faroukfarouk,
Quote
Most Bible based Christians - whether called evangelical or by whatever name - would probably find the claim of distinction between these terms 'God regeneration at baptism' and 'baptismal regeneration' confusing.
Reformers shouldn't have come up with the phrase baptismal regeneration in the first place, and evangelicals shouldn't be using it, it's part of the confusion. Let's scrap the phrase regeneration altogether and speak in plain english. Water does not impart forgiveness, water is an inanimate object. Only God imparts forgiveness, and he does so when a person repents of his/her sins, verbally accepts Jesus as Lord, and is baptized in his name (which is in water).

Quote
I find both concepts - to my humble mind indicating much the same thing - hard to grasp in the light of the many NT passages about faith in the Lord Jesus where water immersion is not even mentioned.

I don't think we are going to agree here.
Proportion and preponderance is an evangelical argument, but not a valid one. If in the Bible it says it only once, then it is valid, in this case forgiveness/salvation at baptism is stated multiple times. The amount of times faith appears, without mentioning baptism, carries no weight at all. It's there, and that's all that counts.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 02:00:46
faroukfarouk,Reformers shouldn't have come up with the phrase baptismal regeneration in the first place, and evangelicals shouldn't be using it, it's part of the confusion. Let's scrap the phrase regeneration altogether and speak in plain english. Water does not impart forgiveness, water is an inanimate object. Only God imparts forgiveness, and he does so when a person accept Jesus as Lord, repent of his sins, and is baptized in his name (which is in water).
Proportion and preponderance is an evangelical argument, but not a valid one. If in the Bible it says it only once, then it is valid, in this case forgiveness/salvation at baptism is stated multiple times. The amount of times faith appears, without mentioning baptism, carries no weight at all. It's there, and that's all that counts.

Well, frankly I can't see that the meaning of John 3.16 is really supposedly as follows:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever [[is baptised]] should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Not would most Bible believing Christians.

I just don't get it.

We are not going to agree on this, it would seem.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 05:50:24
Think the whole NT cumulatively and you WILL get it as God intended it to be gotten. One verse here or there doesn’t do it, or a whole lot of negating is going on. And I think we both know the Bible does not contradict itself if taken as a whole one precept stacked upon another and not shooting for a single proof text bonanza. But as you say, I doubt we will agree on that.

A preponderance of evangelical Christians have perverted the original gospel by parsing baptism out of salvation. Yes it is the majority view, but in error. This was not done or contemplated by first century Chriatians as evidenced in scripture. I prefer leaning on Biblical patterns. They were presented to us for a purpose. The longer this error persists the more pervasive it gets and plain scripture becomes a head scratching mystery.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 06:21:23
I think I had better back out of this discussion, anyway.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 06:29:28
Are ya IN or OUT? I enjoy your input. Is debate the problem? Everyone gives it their best shot. I have changed my mind on some things here over the years? Are you open to the possibility of seeing scripture differently than you have in years or decades.

Coming from a very conservative Church of Christ congregation as a young man to now a more progressive congregation and engaging others here, I HAVE changed my mind on some things. Who knows other things may be seen differently by me as I interact with others here. If I wasn’t open to that I would leave this forum to keep from getting doctrinely polluted.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 07:12:29
Most Bible based Christians - whether called evangelical or by whatever name - would probably find the claim of distinction between these terms 'God regeneration at baptism' and 'baptismal regeneration' confusing.
Baptismal regeneration is a concept that grew primarily, I believe, out of teachings of the Catholic Church; that teaching was that baptism as a sacrament was the cause or the basis for obtaining regeneration  That is, the physical act of baptism is the mechanism producing regeneration.  That is a false teaching.  Baptism is not the means for obtaining forgiveness of sin, but it is the occasion when forgiveness of sin is received. That baptism is the occasion when forgiveness of sin is received is a consistent concept presented throughout the NT.  That was the case even with the baptism of John the Baptist.  From Pentecost on, baptism in Jesus' name was established as the occasion not only for receiving the forgiveness of sin but for receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as well.  I would argue that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling Holy Spirit.  And that also is a consistent concept presented throughout the NT.  The forgiveness of sin together with receiving the gift [the indwelling] of the Holy Spirit constitutes the new birth, or what is typically referred to as regeneration, the making of a new man or a new creation.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: revc on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 07:53:01
Quote from: 4WD
Baptismal regeneration is a concept that grew primarily, I believe, out of teachings of the Catholic Church; that teaching was that baptism as a sacrament was the cause or the basis for obtaining regeneration  That is, the physical act of baptism is the mechanism producing regeneration.  That is a false teaching.  Baptism is not the means for obtaining forgiveness of sin, but it is the occasion when forgiveness of sin is received. That baptism is the occasion when forgiveness of sin is received is a consistent concept presented throughout the NT.  That was the case even with the baptism of John the Baptist.  From Pentecost on, baptism in Jesus' name was established as the occasion not only for receiving the forgiveness of sin but for receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as well.  I would argue that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling Holy Spirit.  And that also is a consistent concept presented throughout the NT.  The forgiveness of sin together with receiving the gift [the indwelling] of the Holy Spirit constitutes the new birth, or what is typically referred to as regeneration, the making of a new man or a new creation.

Yep.  And it is worth noting that baptism is not a work a person does, but rather a submitting to something God ordained be performed by another on the one wishing to be forgiven and become a child of God.  Aside from the middle voice, used once in Paul's case, I believe you will find the passive used when baptism is spoken of.  Just as a person does not bury himself after a funeral, the convert is buried by another in baptism.  If one is not buried with Christ in baptism he cannot be resurrected with Christ.

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:  knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:  knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:3-11

Notice the conditional "if's".  A co-resurrection is conditioned upon being co-buried with Christ in baptism (seems obvious).  This is the moment when the believer has the power and glory of God applied to him to work a resurrection to a new life. It is hard to imagine how much more plain it would have to be made that baptism is when a sinner is joined to the redemptive death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  We become joined to him, and all the punishment of sin (he became sin for us), and power of God applied to Christ in his resurrection is applied to the penitent believer so that he now has buried the old man of sin and has the promise of the same powerful resurrection of Christ unto a glorious life. Despite this crystal clear passage, some still maintain that one can have that life without being co-buried with Christ and then co-resurrected with him.  No other moment is ascribed this attachment to Christ.

RC
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 11:30:16
faroukfarouk,
Quote
Well, frankly I can't see that the meaning of John 3.16 is really supposedly as follows:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever [[is baptised]] should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Not would most Bible believing Christians.

I just don't get it.
With all due respect, it's not hard to get. Before John 3:16, Jesus already covered baptism earlier in the chapter John 3:3-5. There is no actual requirement that baptism has to be in every salvation scripture, the only requirement is that it's there and it is. It seems to me that the difficulty you're having is due to conditioning of the evangelical variety. Without such conditioning a bible-believing person wouldn't have a problem with this.

Quote
We are not going to agree on this, it would seem.
I remember some of other evangelicals who when faced with an argument, tend to say "It's time to end the discussion", not because they just didn't think we'd agree, because they just didn't want to answer the argument. Would you care to address what we've said before you leave? Either the fact that be baptism salvation verse requirement has been met, or Jamie's argument that we are supposed to take scriptures cumulatively?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 11:32:29
faroukfarouk,With all due respect, it's not hard to get. Before John 3:16, Jesus already covered baptism earlier in the chapter John 3:3-5. There is no actual requirement that baptism has to be in every salvation scripture, the only requirement is that it's there and it is. It seems to me that the difficulty you're having is due to deep Evangelical conditioning. A bible-believing person who does not have such conditioning wouldn't have a problem with this.
I remember some of other evangelicals who when faced with an argument, tend to say "It's time to end the discussion", not because they just don't think we'll agree, because they just don't want to answer the argument. Would you care to address what we've said before you leave? Either the fact that be baptism salvation verse requirement has been met, or Jamie's argument that we are supposed to take scriptures cumulatively? Otherwise it really appears that your backing out just because you wish to avoid these.
Frankly, no; if you look at the Favorite Bible verse thread, I give my rationale for not wanting to pursue this. I could say a great deal.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 11:42:35
Jamie,
Quote
Are ya IN or OUT? I enjoy your input. Is debate the problem? Everyone gives it their best shot. I have changed my mind on some things here over the years? Are you open to the possibility of seeing scripture differently than you have in years or decades.

Coming from a very conservative Church of Christ congregation as a young man to now a more progressive congregation and engaging others here, I HAVE changed my mind on some things. Who knows other things may be seen differently by me as I interact with others here. If I wasn’t open to that I would leave this forum to keep from getting doctrinely polluted.
Jamie, have you ever come across an element within the by grace alone, through faith alone community in person that when you confront them with scriptures or information or a question that contradicts their paradigm that the stereotypical arguments are not enough to handle, that they then look away and smile and say "I just don't think this going anywhere I think we should end this." ?  I've seen that pattern a couple of times in the past. I suspect this is what we're seeing.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 11:45:54
Jamie,Jamie, have you never come an element within the in the by grace alone, through faith alone community in person that when you confront them with scriptures or information or a question that contradicts their paradigm that the stereotypical argument is not enough to handle, that they then look away and smile and say "I just don't think this going anywhere I think we should end this." ?  I've seen that pattern a couple of times in the past. I get the feeling this is what we're seeing.

I've had this in person with 5 steppers (since we are using slightly mean designations, I thought I would participate).

I had a baptism discussion with a CofC elder.  Since I responded with biblical verses to his diatribe, he got beet red and was very angry.

In fact, angry enough I was sure he wanted to hit me.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 11:48:08
faroukfarouk,With all due respect, it's not hard to get. Before John 3:16, Jesus already covered baptism earlier in the chapter John 3:3-5. There is no actual requirement that baptism has to be in every salvation scripture, the only requirement is that it's there and it is. It seems to me that the difficulty you're having is due to deep Evangelical conditioning. A bible-believing person who does not have such conditioning wouldn't have a problem with this.
I remember some of other evangelicals who when faced with an argument, tend to say "It's time to end the discussion", not because they just don't think we'll agree, because they just don't want to answer the argument. Would you care to address what we've said before you leave? Either the fact that be baptism salvation verse requirement has been met, or Jamie's argument that we are supposed to take scriptures cumulatively? Otherwise it really appears that your backing out just because you wish to avoid these.

I still don't buy that John 3:3-5 is discussing water baptism.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 11:52:30
Texas Conservative,
Sorry you had that experience, I had a similar experience with a CofC mainline preacher. He went off on me! It is similar, cause in both cases they don't want to deal with what's being presented to them. But different in their style of response. I'm speaking of real experiences and by grace alone, through faith alone community was an agreed upon name between me and someone in that community, why do you think of this as a slightly mean designation?

Quote
I still don't buy that John 3:3-5 is discussing water baptism.
Ok.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 11:58:19
Texas Conservative,
Sorry you had that experience, I had a similar experience with a CofC mainline preacher. He went off on me! It is similar, it is similar, cousin both cases they don't want to deal with what's being presented to them. But different in their style of response. I'm speaking of real experiences, why do you think of this as a slightly mean designation?
Ok.

I think you were pigeonholing a whole group of people.

I have never met a "bible believing person" who has not had some doctrinal conditioning that may not line up with scripture.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 12:05:24
I still don't buy that John 3:3-5 is discussing water baptism.
What water is it discussing?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 12:06:35
Texas Conservative,
Quote
I think you were pigeonholing a whole group of people.

I have never met a "bible believing person" who has not had some doctrinal conditioning that may not line up with scripture.
Good point. I can agree with that, and I was addressing one variety of conditioning, there are many.
I do believe though, that I've spoken with people who have risen above their conditioning, both in and outside of my belief system.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 31, 2018 - 12:48:51
faroukfarouk,
Quote
Frankly, no; if you look at the Favorite Bible verse thread, I give my rationale for not wanting to pursue this. I could say a great deal.
I missed seeing this post. Will do. I'll respect that.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 08:46:25
Quote
And I forgot to add, Paul was saved because he repented and believed in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes they have done a fabulous job, but answering what? The fabulous thing that they can do is to listen and try to understand what Ananias said to Paul. It was an unconditional election and appointment by God of Paul. If they don't see that as the salvation of Paul, who himself confessed and considers himself as the chief of sinners, but insist that Paul was saved because he was baptized with water, then they have closed their eyes to the truth that salvation belongs to God and is the work of God and is accomplished by God.

Despite being elected by God as His chosen instrument, he was still with his sins,  last I checked, one is not saved until their sins are forgiven. This was addressed to you by others in their fabulous response, and you have not offered anyting to make that go away.

Apparently, you seem to agree that we see in the case of Paul, an unconditional election and appointment by God of Paul. That I'd say is good. Now, the question is, do you see that as God's salvation work on Paul or is it just that He had chosen Paul for a purpose?

Don't you agree and believe that salvation does not belong to man, is not the work of man, is not accomplished by man, but belongs to God and is the work of God and is accomplished by God?

Yes, Paul was a sinner when he was chosen by God, and election is not forgiveness of sins. But clearly, such election as that of Paul, as was that of the apostles, is grace from God. And we learn from scriptures that salvation was accomplished by God, in Christ. God gave His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, that whosoever BELIEVES in Him should have everlasting life. And what does it take for one to believe, but that he repents toward God and Christ?

Now Paul was unconditionally elected and was granted repentance for the forgiveness of his sins. That he was told to call on God. And for what that he was told to call on God by Ananias, except that he ask for the forgiveness of his sins? And what does his calling on the Lord speaks out, but his having repented unto believing in the Lord?

Yes, one is not saved until his sins are forgiven. And one is not forgiven until he repent and call on the name of the Lord and ask for forgiveness. And don't you know that it is God who grants us repentance? In the case at hand, obviously Paul was granted repentance by God. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 08:53:56
And baptism IS that “calling upon the Lord FOR a clear conscience” where Paul’s sins were washed away. 1 Peter 3:21.

Also God doesn’t repent FOR us. God pricks our hearts unto Godly Sorrow, and Godly sorrow brings about repentance, our choice to repent or not.

Yes salvation is ALL of God - offered to man for our acceptance or rejection. The gift is His, the choice to accept is ours. Our choice does not take away anything from God saving us. It is none of man in his acceptance. Our receiving the gift in no way cheapens the priceless gift of salvation.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 09:09:00
Michael it is clear that you apparently not only do not know what baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is but also don't know what repenting is either.  Repenting is not something God does for us but something we must do ourselves.  You try so hard to discredit baptism purpose that you mess up other biblical terms as well
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 09:15:53
I agree Yogi, repentance is what every invitation song ever written and sung was about, OUR response to God’s gracious gift that we cannot earn or merit.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 09:20:31
In the case at hand, obviously Paul was granted repentance by God.
Granted repentance??  That is not even a rational statement.  Repentance isn't granted.  It is accepted or rejected.  If someone wrongs you and then repents and apologizes to you for what he has said or done, you don't grant his repenting and apologizing; you accept it or you reject it.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 09:25:54
Michael, if I offered to give you $100 as a free gift, would you be contributing any part to the free gift by accepting it?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 12:05:47
Jaime,
Good question.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 13:19:39
Michael2012,
Quote
Apparently, you seem to agree that we see in the case of Paul, an unconditional election and appointment by God of Paul. That I'd say is good. Now, the question is, do you see that as God's salvation work on Paul or is it just that He had chosen Paul for a purpose?
Just that He had chosen Paul for a purpose. Plus God knows in advance that he will be saved.

Quote
Don't you agree and believe that salvation does not belong to man, is not the work of man, is not accomplished by man, but belongs to God and is the work of God and is accomplished by God?
This isn't straight language. There is some evangelical ideology and terminology here. I will answer in straight language and scripture. Salvation does not belong to man, as it is something only God does. God does the actual "saving". We "accomplish" the response that He has called for before He saves us. Salvation is not the work of men, in the sense of Ephesians 2:8-15, which means not the tasks God has planned for us after we are saved and not circumcision or other works of the Mosaic law. But we do our part in the process, and God does His, which is by far the greater part.

Quote
Yes, Paul was a sinner when he was chosen by God, and election is not forgiveness of sins. But clearly, such election as that of Paul, as was that of the apostles, is grace from God. And we learn from scriptures that salvation was accomplished by God, in Christ. God gave His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, that whosoever BELIEVES in Him should have everlasting life. And what does it take for one to believe, but that he repents toward God and Christ?

Now Paul was unconditionally elected and was granted repentance for the forgiveness of his sins. That he was told to call on God. And for what that he was told to call on God by Ananias, except that he ask for the forgiveness of his sins? And what does his calling on the Lord speaks out, but his having repented unto believing in the Lord?
We learn from scripture that the opportunity for salvation was accomplished by God. As you said, whoever believes in him. God has given us the opportunity, and God does the saving, but in the middle is still the response God expects from us.

From the point of And for what that he was told.... onward, your language is very convoluted and unclear. Please clear it up or simplify it. Thank you.

Quote
Yes, one is not saved until his sins are forgiven. And one is not forgiven until he repent and call on the name of the Lord and ask for forgiveness. And don't you know that it is God who grants us repentance?
In the sense of
Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

yes, he was granted repentance, but in the sense of
Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
and
Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

he also "repented". It's a response as well as a gift.

Quote
In the case at hand, obviously Paul was granted repentance by God.
He also repented. And Ananias included, Acts 22:16 ... Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

You're correct including repentance, because repentance is necessary, but in the very verse where it refers to washing away sins, being baptized and calling on His name were also, explicitly, included.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 14:05:25
Erm, I would contend it’s not baptism AND calling on his name. Baptism IS calling on his name 1Peter 3:21.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 14:31:57
Jamie,
Like dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. This is one of those things. They overlap so much, but I think it could be stated either way justifiably.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 14:40:20
If one is baptized, they ARE calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience. 1 Peter 3:21.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 17:11:25
I agree.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 17:48:02
I agree.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 18:36:24
If one is baptized, they ARE calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience. 1 Peter 3:21.

Sounds like the biblical "sinner's prayer."

Would be interested to see if Michael2012 practices the sinner's prayer or has a problem with it.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 18:44:21
Texas Conservative,
Biblical sinner's prayer? That's an oximoron.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 18:51:03
Michael2012,
Do you practice the sinner's prayer or have a problem with it?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 18:56:23
Texas Conservative,
Biblical sinner's prayer? That's an oximoron.

It is why I used quotes.  The sinner's prayer is a method of contacting God in faith.  I do not believe it is correct as a formula.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 19:19:04
Texas Conservative,
Sorry, I see.

How does  "If one is baptized, they ARE calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience" sound like the sinner's prayer to you?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 21:47:32
Texas Conservative,
Sorry, I see.

How does  "If one is baptized, they ARE calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience" sound like the sinner's prayer to you?

The entire "calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience" deal sounds like the sinner's prayer.

The "calling on His Name" as well.

I don't happen to like the Sinner's Prayer, but my brotherhood has employed it's use.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 22:01:16
Who said we have to like it. Baptism being the appeal to God for a clear conscience is is as plainly visible in scripture as my nose is on my face. And it was exactly what Paul did as chronicled in Acts 22.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 22:07:45
Who said we have to like it. Baptism being the appeal to God for a clear conscience is is as plainly visible in scripture as my nose is on my face. And it was exactly what Paul did as chronicled in Acts 22.

I was explaining why baptism is very much the biblical version of "The Sinner's Prayer." 

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 22:12:45
Gotcha. Absolutely right! But it has nothing to do with salvation to some. Incredible. It’s like saying football has absolutely nothing to do with the NCAA. Or weiners have nothing to do with hotdogs.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: soterion on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 22:32:58
The sinner's prayer is, as I have heard of it and understand it, is a literal prayer for forgiveness and of commitment to Jesus unto salvation. Nothing in scripture teaches or exemplifies this.

Baptism is an explicitly commanded expression of faith in Christ for our salvation that unites the baptized together with Christ on the cross and with His resurrection, the baptized nonverbally seeking for forgiveness and cleansing of sins and inclusion among those of the body of Christ.

I can't even begin to compare the two.

TC, I know what you are saying. Anything that a person believes is what finally results in the forgiveness of sins and addition to the body could be that person's "sinner's prayer." It's just that, from reading these latest posts, there seems to be this comparison because of phrases like, "calling on the name of the Lord" and "an appeal for a clean conscience." This calling and appeal are largely nonverbal as far as I see it in baptism, and so they shouldn't have caused any comparison to verbal prayer to begin with.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 23:02:17
I looked up a few evangelical videos on baptism and it's sad how much they don't use scriptures.
https://youtu.be/TDt_yX-DX4s
He said it makes it clear throughout the word throughout the Bible, that is not a ritual that saves anybody. But then he doesn't even try to show in the Bible where it makes it clear. He's like "Just trust me!"

He then reads Romans 6:3, he reads the part where it says we are joined with him in baptism, and then he said something different than what he just read, that it identifies us with Christ. He didn't just read that it "identifies" us with Christ he read that it "joins" us with Christ. He's making himself out to be a liar in front of his audience.

In the second one
https://youtu.be/g2Eox0kFAAY
the first guy says he's going to walk through the Bible and then repeatedly says "The Bible says", "The Bible says", without quoting the Bible on most of his points. Most of these preachers, including him, use Romans 6:3-4 and then say things that are not written there, like symbolizing and publically declaring on's faith. The third guy, same thing. The little scriptures they use don't say what they're saying. Very light on scripture in proportion to all their points. This one uses nice music though, which helps people not notice their lack of Biblical support.

And as well, they all refer to Romans 6 as baptism in water. It is only recently that people are moving away from saying that Romans 6 is baptism in water, because verses 4-7 show that the baptism in Romans 6 is for salvation. That is no longer deniable, so now everybody's jumping ship and calling it the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. These videos show that evangelicals originally believed Romans 6 as baptism in water.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 23:07:00
soterion,
Agreed.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 23:10:31
Texas Conservative,
Quote
The entire "calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience" deal sounds like the sinner's prayer.

The "calling on His Name" as well.

I don't happen to like the Sinner's Prayer, but my brotherhood has employed it's use.

I was explaining why baptism is very much the biblical version of "The Sinner's Prayer."
Thank you for explaining.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Thu Aug 02, 2018 - 11:42:44
Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin,
        because we are not under the law,
        but under grace? God forbid.
Rom. 6:16 Know ye not,
        that to whom ye YIELD yourselves servants TO OBEY, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
        whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom. 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin,
        but ye have OBEYED from the heart that FORM

        of doctrine which was delivered you.

Knowing that defining WORDS is a dangerous thing 

        OBEYED: g5219 hupakous to heed or conform to a command or authority: — hearken, be obedient to, obey.
     
        FORM: g5179. tupos,  figuratively) style or resemblance;
        specially, a sampler (“type”), i.e. a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning): 

Rom. 6:18 Being THEN made FREE from sin,
       ye BECAME the servants of righteousness.
Rom. 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh:
       For as ye have YIELDED your members servants to UNCLEANNESS  and to iniquity unto iniquity;
       even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

2Th. 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
        and that OBEY NOT the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Pet. 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the HOUSE of God:
       and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

1Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself
        in the HOUSE of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God,
        the pillar and ground of the truth.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 09:11:47
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 09:46:18
You are right, baptism is a command, unlike repentance towards God and faith in Christ.

You are wrong repentance is a command just as faith is a command.

Luke 24:47 (KJV)
47  And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
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 17:30 (KJV)
30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Just as the many scriptures teach one must believe but I know you already know them so no need to post them.

See you read the scriptures but do not understand what you read because those above proved your statement that repentance and faith is not a command.

I respect your opinion sir. We are aware that each of us here have somewhat different takes of what God has revealed about Him and creation in scriptures. That is the very reason why Christians, like us, take time to study and exchange thoughts regarding this. On my end, I do this in the spirit of truth, and hope of unity and fellowship in the Spirit among the children of God.

Consider the following, regarding the Greek word "paraggelló" translated as "command":

Matthew 15:35 So He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.

Luke 8:31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

While in Acts 17:30, it says God commands all men to repent, it is in the same sense as that in Matthew 15:35, and not in the sense as it is used in Luke 8:31. Point being is that, while you can say and read in Acts 17:30 that repentance is a command, it is not in the same sense as that with baptism in the name of Christ, which the apostles were commanded to do on those who were granted repentance, who repented towards God and faith in Christ, that is, those who believes in the gospel the apostles were commanded to preach.   

Baptism is not a command to Christians, but to them who were granted repentance, that is, those who repents and believes in the gospel.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 09:17:59
For those wanting to be Christians.

He that believes AND  is baptized shall be saved (become a Christian).
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 09:25:00
Baptism is not a command to Christians, but to them who were granted repentance, that is, those who repents and believes in the gospel.
Granted repentance??  What in the world does that even mean?  Repentance isn't granted.  Repentance is what the believer does.  The one who believes, repents and is baptized is receives the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  Receiving forgiveness and being given the gift of the Holy Spirit is how one becomes a Christian.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 11:00:00
I agree 4 WD. Repentance is one of man’s faith responses. It is NOT something granted.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 17:44:27
Really Michael do you read what you post? Please show me just one passage that say one is granted repentance I am quite sure that I have not ever seen one passage that makes that claim so please show me where you get that.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 22:04:37
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:01:07
No one here I suppose is suggesting that a believer should not be baptized nor be baptized later. The point is in the question:  When one does repent and believe in God and Christ, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?

Michael let me answer your question with a question. Do believe what scriptures say? I will let the scriptures do the talking because I admittedly do not know the mind of God but only what he revealed in his word can you say the same and let the word answer your question?
The question is when is the forgiveness of sin recorded as being done. Before baptism or through baptism?

Do we agree that before the cross the coming kingdom was to be preached setting the way for the kingdom to be in place? If so we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was all recorded of the kingdom to come. In Acts we read that the kingdom has come and we read in Acts 2 of how one is to enter into the kingdom.

Peter preaches the resurrected Christ for the first time in opening the doors to the kingdom that has come. In so he answers sthe question of what one must do to enter into the kingdom

Acts 2:38-39 (KJV)
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.
39  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Nothing hidden here it is clearly spelled out One must repent (command) and be baptized in Christ name (why) for the forgiveness of sin (then) you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Could not get any more clear could it?

But as we told you this is backed by more scripture it is not a stand alone.

Acts 22:16 (KJV)
16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

See this backs up Acts 2:38 saying the same the baptism in Christ name is for the forgiveness of sin and how one calls on the name of the Lord.

That is not the only one that backs it up look at Romans 6

Romans 6:3-4 (KJV)
3   Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

You see it clearly states that it is in the baptism in Christ name that we are transformed from dead in sin to alive in Christ the new birth.

Romans 6:16-18 (KJV)
16  Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17  But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18  Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

You see Paul says that it was in the baptism in Christ name that the transformation took place. He backs that in other letters to the church this is not a stand alone scripture but has backing from others.

Galatians 3:27 (KJV)
27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

See again Paul says that it was in the baptism in Christ name where one has put on Christ backing the above scriptures.

Colossians 2:12-13 (KJV)
12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Again Paul testifying that in baptism ones sin are forgiven and the new birth take place.

How many more times does one need to be told. The bible has answered your question for you will you take it for its word or do you want to debate the scriptures that gives the only recorded answer you are seeking. We can not go above or beyond what is recorded.

Perhaps, after I address your post here you can answer my question with an honest direct answer.

You posted "The question is when is the forgiveness of sin recorded as being done. Before baptism or through baptism?"

Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.

Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin

Apparently, many think that forgiveness of sins is had by baptism, which is not, but is by repentance towards God and believing in Christ.

Examine and study the two scriptures I cited. For in them, this truth can be learned. Christ had offered up his life, that is His blood, as a sacrificial offering for the sin of the world. Why there is no more offering for sin is because what Christ had offered, the only sacrifice acceptable to God and that which pleased God, had effected the remission of sins, once and for all. That's what Hebrews 10:18 says.

Not only for a few, but for the world. That is not to say that all had been forgiven.

Now, those who believe in Christ receives forgiveness of sin. That is what Acts 10:43 says. And why is that? For only in Christ, one receives the mercy of God. Examine and study the following scriptures to learn about what one have in Christ.

Ephesians 4:32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

Ephesians 1 is a good read on this matter. Please examine and study it.

I wonder why many read scriptures and look for what they must do to be saved, when the scriptures is about what God had done to save man.

The message is simple. Salvation is in Christ. So be in Christ. Obviously, what is there for man to do, is to be in Christ. Repent therefore, towards God, and believe in Christ. For in Christ is the forgiveness of sins.

Another thing is that, not many think and understand, that they are saved, not because of their compliance to and their doing of what they take as good works, but because they are IN CHRIST. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 22:13:50
Michael, repenting is most certainly a faith response just as confessing with our lips and baptism.

In the first century all faith responses were immediate per scripture. The modern idea of delaying baptism is not modeled in scripture.

We are told in scripture what happens with the non-hypotheticals. What happens in the hypotheticals is up to God. His inspired scripture did not address every hypothetical. We know from scripture one is saved if he believe and is baptized. We know that an unbeliever is condemned. Scripture does not address an unbaptized believer. It would not have been contemplated in the first century.

Baptism is not a “rite” invented by man. God chose it as a meaningful faith response just as he did repentance, and confessing with our lips.

And remember, there is no reason to look for a single verse to include all aspects of salvation. We MUST take all scripture cumultively, which is why we were given scripture. The believe verses do not trump all other salvation verses. The repent verses do not trump all other salvation verses, etc. if all salvation verses don’t apply, then I see no basis for this discussion or the New Testament as a whole for that matter.

Yes perhaps baptism is not a rite invented by man, but nevertheless, still a rite.

Nobody here is saying of taking a single verse and make it say all that scriptures says elsewhere. But there is but one message on salvation. What is that? That salvation belongs to God and is in Christ. So be in Christ. Obviously, what is there for man to do, is to be in Christ. Repent therefore, towards God, and believe in Christ. For in Christ is the forgiveness of sins.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 22:23:30
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:19:26
So you leave the HYPOTHETICALS in God's hand. And in whose hand then do you leave the NON HYPOTHETICALS? Man's or God's?
God of course saves the Non Hypotheticals - by his prescribed way in scripture. We can read what he prescribed. He didn't address the Hypotheticals in scripture as I have said, which is why their fate is up to Him. A prime example of an age old hypothetical is the quadriplegic stranded in middle of the Sahara Desert. Not addressed in scripture, therefore up to God and his will.

The question is "in whose hand then do you leave the NON HYPOTHETICALS?". I hope to have your direct answer on this.

You opined "He didn't address the Hypotheticals in scripture as I have said, which is why their fate is up to Him." Don't you believe that God, in Christ, had revealed His will and the fate of man?   
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 22:54:36
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 - 10:50:43
And what made you think that these verses are lacking?

Yes, these passages does not explicitly talk about repentance. But repentance, if you just open wide your eyes, is all over these passages.

Now, with regards baptism, no matter how wide you may open your eyes, you won't see it there.
Michael I beg to differ on your statement that those passages does not speak of baptism  if you open your eyes they do just as they speak of repentance as you said.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life

How was Jesus lifted up? Isn't it a direct reference to the cross, and where did Paul say we meet Jesus at the cross? Hint look at Romans  it is in the baptism in Christ name where we are buried with Christ and rise new in Christ. The born again experience.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Here again How did God give his son to redeem man was it not the cross that we have already covered above?

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Again it can not be with out the cross and we have answered this with scripture.


On John 3:14, you said "How was Jesus lifted up? Isn't it a direct reference to the cross, and where did Paul say we meet Jesus at the cross? Hint look at Romans  it is in the baptism in Christ name where we are buried with Christ and rise new in Christ. The born again experience."

That is stretching the verse far too much that it breaks and not hold. While the lifting up refer to the crucifixion, the point of the verse is this: that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life (v.15), typical to that in the lifting of the serpent.

On John 3:16, you said "Here again How did God give his son to redeem man was it not the cross that we have already covered above?"

And I have covered that one above. The same is true here, that is, whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

On John 11:25-27, you said "Again it can not be with out the cross and we have answered this with scripture."

And again, I sorry to say, that you have not. As you can clearly see, what is all over is about believing in Christ. Christ told the woman "He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live."
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 23:00:01
Michael2012,
Quote
Quote
And what made you think that these verses are lacking?
Yes, these passages does not explicitly talk about repentance. But repentance, if you just open wide your eyes, is all over these passages.

Now, with regards baptism, no matter how wide you may open your eyes, you won't see it there.
Eye of the beholder, huh? Isn't that convenient? Sorry, but the written word carries more weight than inferences. John 12:47-50, 2 Peter 1:20-21.

It is for the spiritual man, but not for the natural man. For scriptures are the things of the Spirit of God and they are spiritually discerned.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 23:09:09
Michael2012,
Quote
Quote
What is your answer to the question then? Can you say it direct to the point?
My answer to the question is that the Bible doesn't say when the precise moment is, down to the second, just that it happens then. The same would apply for any other alleged method of getting saved. The best description I've ever heard is that salvation ultimately occurs in the mind of God, because He's the one who forgives us. So to know when this precisely happens in the mind of God is beyond our knowledge.

The question:

Does God forgives only in baptism?

If you preached to someone, that he should believe in Christ and be baptized, and does repent and believe, will he be saved only when baptized with water or after being baptized with water?


The question is not asking as to what precise moment one is saved. So, I'd say that your answer evades the question. So, kindly stick to the question. They're simple enough, won't you agree?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 23:16:37
Michael it is clear that you apparently not only do not know what baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is but also don't know what repenting is either.  Repenting is not something God does for us but something we must do ourselves.  You try so hard to discredit baptism purpose that you mess up other biblical terms as well

Who is saying that repenting is something God does for us? I don't know where you got that.

Welcoming such idea impress on me that you either don't know what repentance is or how one comes to repentance.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 23:19:54
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 01, 2018 - 08:46:25
In the case at hand, obviously Paul was granted repentance by God.
Granted repentance??  That is not even a rational statement.  Repentance isn't granted.  It is accepted or rejected.  If someone wrongs you and then repents and apologizes to you for what he has said or done, you don't grant his repenting and apologizing; you accept it or you reject it.

Apparently, it may not be to you.

You said "Repentance isn't granted.  It is accepted or rejected."

2 Timothy 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 23:22:32
Michael, if I offered to give you $100 as a free gift, would you be contributing any part to the free gift by accepting it?
Jaime,
Good question.


No.

See, I can answer directly a simple question. I hope you could likewise when I ask you simple questions.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 03, 2018 - 23:44:34
Michael2012,
Quote
Apparently, you seem to agree that we see in the case of Paul, an unconditional election and appointment by God of Paul. That I'd say is good. Now, the question is, do you see that as God's salvation work on Paul or is it just that He had chosen Paul for a purpose?
Just that He had chosen Paul for a purpose. Plus God knows in advance that he will be saved.

So, are you saying that God's election only applies to one in whom God had some purpose to be done by the man, like that of His election of Paul? What do you think then is God's election of a people to be His people? 

And of course, needless to point out, God is omniscient and have foreknowledge.

Now, you said regarding the case of Paul, "God knows in advance that he will be saved." How do you supposed that comes about in the foreknowledge of God? I would suppose you are referring to some future occasion that Paul would believe in Christ. And by saying that God knew that it would happen that Paul will believe, you give us the impression that God took this out from the future by electing him ahead of that. Is that what you are telling us?  Please explain.   
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 00:07:30
Quote
Quote
Don't you agree and believe that salvation does not belong to man, is not the work of man, is not accomplished by man, but belongs to God and is the work of God and is accomplished by God?
This isn't straight language. There is some evangelical ideology and terminology here. I will answer in straight language and scripture. Salvation does not belong to man, as it is something only God does. God does the actual "saving". We "accomplish" the response that He has called for before He saves us. Salvation is not the work of men, in the sense of Ephesians 2:8-15, which means not the tasks God has planned for us after we are saved and not circumcision or other works of the Mosaic law. But we do our part in the process, and God does His, which is by far the greater part.

Straight language? Can you tell us what is straight language?

By what you said, you are saying then the following:

1. That salvation does not belong to man.
2. That salvation belongs to God.
3. That salvation is something only God does.
4. That God does the saving.
5. That salvation is not the work of men.
6. That in order for God to save man, God needed man to accomplish something that he commands of them to accomplish.

All except #6, affirms your agreement that salvation does not belong to man, is not the work of man, and belongs to God and is the work of God. However, #6 negates that salvation is accomplished by God. It makes God's accomplishing His salvation dependent on man. So the questions arise:

Must God depend on man in accomplishing His salvation?

Can God trust and have faith in sinful man that he is both able and will accomplish that which you say is the part of man to do so that God accomplishes His salvation?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 00:45:05
Quote
Quote
Yes, Paul was a sinner when he was chosen by God, and election is not forgiveness of sins. But clearly, such election as that of Paul, as was that of the apostles, is grace from God. And we learn from scriptures that salvation was accomplished by God, in Christ. God gave His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, that whosoever BELIEVES in Him should have everlasting life. And what does it take for one to believe, but that he repents toward God and Christ?

Now Paul was unconditionally elected and was granted repentance for the forgiveness of his sins. That he was told to call on God. And for what that he was told to call on God by Ananias, except that he ask for the forgiveness of his sins? And what does his calling on the Lord speaks out, but his having repented unto believing in the Lord?
We learn from scripture that the opportunity for salvation was accomplished by God. As you said, whoever believes in him. God has given us the opportunity, and God does the saving, but in the middle is still the response God expects from us.

From the point of And for what that he was told.... onward, your language is very convoluted and unclear. Please clear it up or simplify it. Thank you.

I did not say that God has given us the opportunity to be saved, unless you are putting that into my mouth. What I said is "that salvation was accomplished by God, in Christ." Very different I should say.

I don't see anything convoluted in my post Sir. But okay, to simply things for you:

Paul was a sinner when he was chosen by God.
Election is not forgiveness of sins.
Election, such as that of Paul, is grace from God.
Salvation was accomplished by God, in Christ.
Jesus Christ is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Whosoever BELIEVES in Christ should have everlasting life.
What it takes for one to believe, is that he repents toward God and Christ.

Remember that on the road to Damascus, Paul was out on a mission, having authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on the name of Christ. He is obviously against Christ and those who believes in Christ. Now, we know the story. Paul was unconditionally elected by God. Unconditionally in that, there is nothing in Paul that is deserving of God's grace of having to elect him for a godly mission. To the contrary, he is deserving of punishment for persecuting Christ. Now, later he was told to call on the name of God. And for what that he was told to call on God by Ananias, except that he ask for the forgiveness of his sins? This could only be evidence that he was granted repentance by God, for the forgiveness of his sins. Paul did call on the Lord, evidently speaking out his having repented unto believing in the Lord.

I hope that, that is no longer convoluted for you sir.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 00:54:17
Quote
Quote
Yes, one is not saved until his sins are forgiven. And one is not forgiven until he repent and call on the name of the Lord and ask for forgiveness. And don't you know that it is God who grants us repentance?
In the sense of
Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

yes, he was granted repentance, but in the sense of
Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
and
Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

he also "repented". It's a response as well as a gift.

Quote
Quote
In the case at hand, obviously Paul was granted repentance by God.
He also repented. And Ananias included, Acts 22:16 ... Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

You're correct including repentance, because repentance is necessary, but in the very verse where it refers to washing away sins, being baptized and calling on His name were also, explicitly, included.


You said of repentance, "It's a response as well as a gift." Please explain how this is.

With regards your post on the last segment, can you tell us your understanding of "Paul was granted repentance by God"?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 01:13:31
If one is baptized, they ARE calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience. 1 Peter 3:21.

Please tell us what you mean to say by "calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience", which you relate with baptism and 1 Peter 3:21.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 01:42:44
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 09:11:47
Baptism is not a command to Christians, but to them who were granted repentance, that is, those who repents and believes in the gospel.

Granted repentance??  What in the world does that even mean?  Repentance isn't granted.  Repentance is what the believer does.  The one who believes, repents and is baptized is receives the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  Receiving forgiveness and being given the gift of the Holy Spirit is how one becomes a Christian.

You said "Repentance isn't granted." Scriptures on the other hand said it is:

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

2 Timothy 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

You said "Repentance is what the believer does."

That is not quite right Sir. Repentance is what an unbeliever does, and that, towards God and believe in Christ. And how does he have repentance, if not, God grants him repentance?

You said "Receiving forgiveness and being given the gift of the Holy Spirit is how one becomes a Christian."

Again, that is not quite right Sir. Receiving forgiveness, though a Christian does, and receiving the HS, though a Christian does, is not how one becomes a Christian or is what makes one a Christian. Repenting towards God and believing in Christ is what makes one a Christian.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 01:45:00
I agree 4 WD. Repentance is one of man’s faith responses. It is NOT something granted.

Scriptures says:

2 Timothy 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 01:46:05
Really Michael do you read what you post? Please show me just one passage that say one is granted repentance I am quite sure that I have not ever seen one passage that makes that claim so please show me where you get that.

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

2 Timothy 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 01:48:53
For those wanting to be Christians.

He that believes AND  is baptized shall be saved (become a Christian).


Becoming a Christian is not a want that could be acquired by doing this or that.

One becomes a Christian, when God grants him repentance, that he repents towards God and believe in Christ.

The right to become children of God is not something that could be earned nor bought. It is something that is given by God, given to those who receive Christ and believe in His name, those who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 08:23:25
Michael, calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience is an APPEAL TO God for such. Where’s the confusion on this?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 09:18:37
Michael, calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience is an APPEAL TO God for such. Where’s the confusiin on this?

Who is saying of a confusion in that? All I was requesting is for you to expound on it, so that I may know what you understand by it, in relation to baptism and 1 Peter 3:21.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 09:20:05
Expounded is what I did. Do you not see the same thing? It is what Paul did in Acts 22. He arose and was baptized washing away his sins calling upon the Lord. Baptism IS the APPEAL to God to wash away sins. Which is what 1Peter 3:21 says. It all matches up and is perfectly congruant. If one of us doesn’t see that, one of us is confused, hence my question.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 09:46:25
Expounded is what I did. Do you not see the same thing? It is what Paul did in Acts 22. He arose and was baptized washing away his sins calling upon the Lord. Baptism IS the APPEAL to God to wash away sins. Which is what 1Peter 3:21 says. It all matches up and is perfectly congruant. If one of us doesn’t see that, one of us is confused, hence my question.

Very well then, can you tell me how you understand 1 Peter 3:21?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 10:15:53
I understand it pretty much as I have already stated. The verse clearly states that baptism is NOT like washing dirt off of your body, but it is an appeal to GOD FOR a clear conscience, via the remission of sin. Should we understand it differently than what it says?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 10:53:47
I understand it pretty much as I have already stated. The verse clearly states that baptism is NOT like washing dirt off of your body, but it is an appeal to GOD FOR a clear conscience, via the remission of sin. Should we understand it differently than what it says?

1 Pet. 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

But wait, that is not the translation I guess that you refer to. Anyway, taking what you say there, that baptism is an appeal to God for a clear conscience via the remission of sins, how is baptism an antitype, and an antitype of what?

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 11:06:12
Noah’s ark was the anti-type. My version NASB says corresponding to that baptism now saves you, not like washing dirt off the body, but as an appeal to God FOR a clean conscience.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 11:37:21
Noah’s ark was the anti-type. My version NASB says corresponding to that baptism now saves you, not like washing dirt off the body, but as an appeal to God FOR a clean conscience.

Isn't baptism the anti-type?

Anyway, considering the NASB, and taking Noah's ark, that would make the verse saying that baptism corresponds to Noah's ark? Please do be kind enough to explain just a little bit more in detail.

I'll say it again then, taking what you say that baptism is an appeal to God for a clear conscience via the remission of sins, how does baptism corresponds to that said in verse 20 regarding the eight persons, who were brought safely through the water in the days of Noah and the flood?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 11:53:45
The ark saved Noah’s family through the water. Baptism NOW Saves us as an appeal to God for a clean conscience. Pretty simple really. The same appeal Paul did when he was baptized washing away his sins calling upon the Lord......... for what? A clean conscience of course as God remitted his sins.

And I will say this, I didn’t say baptism was an appeal to God for a clean conscience, scripture does. I just repeated it. Big difference.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 12:02:45
The ark saved Noah’s family through the water. Baptism NOW Corresponds to that as the verse says, as an appeal to God for a clean comscience.

I hope that you have shown to the people reading this thread, how baptism is an anti-type to Noah's ark by that.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 12:05:33
I have, as scripture clearly has. I hope YOU can open your eyes soon.

God saved Noah through the water. He now saves us through the water. Water that is totally spiritually inert. HE does His work IN the water. As he did with Noah. He coulda chose something else but he didn’t.

Michael, I really hope you aren’t being purposely obtuse. This isn’t that difficult.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 12:15:04
Pet. 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,
        while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1Pet. 3:21 The like FIGURE whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Figure is 499  antitupon, an-teet´-oo-pon; neuter of a compound of 473 and 5179; corresponding (“antitype”), i.e. a representative, counterpart: — (like) figure (whereunto).

g473. anti, an-tee´; a primary particle; opposite, i.e. INSTEAD or because of (rarely in addition to): — for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, CORRESPONDENCE, etc.

g5179. tupos, too´-pos; from 5180; a die (as struck), i.e. (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy, a shape, i.e. a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specially, a sampler (“type”), i.e. a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning): — en-(ex-)ample, fashion, figure, form, manner, pattern, print.

All we have to do instead of building an Ark is INSTEAD OF: isn't that GRACEFUL.

Peter says that BAPTISM SAVES because in ASKING or INSTEAD OF God gives us A holy spirit or A good conscience.  The ARK is not defined as a boat but a COFFIN.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 12:32:44
Michael, I understand he who believes yes there are several verses that state that but what does it mean to believe?

You say that to believe includes confessing Christ before man and repentance  but the bible doesn't stop with just that the bible also includes baptism as part of our faith. It teaches one that is considered a believer was baptized into Christ see Acts 19:1-5

So if the bible includes one that believes as having been baptized into Christ  what do you understand one that believes means?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: RB on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 12:33:25
Becoming a Christian is not a want that could be acquired by doing this or that.

One becomes a Christian, when God grants him repentance, that he repents towards God and believe in Christ.

The right to become children of God is not something that could be earned nor bought. It is something that is given by God, given to those who receive Christ and believe in His name, those who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Amen Michael~good post...this is said NOT to put our brother Jaime down, he's a good man but his problem with 1st Peter 3:21 is here:
Quote from: Jaime Reply #308 on: Today at 08:23:25
Michael, calling upon the Lord FOR a clean conscience is an APPEAL TO God for such. Where’s the confusion on this?
My brother you can start HERE:
Quote from: Jaime Reply #314 on: Today at 11:06:12
My version NASB says corresponding to that baptism now saves you, not like washing dirt off the body, but as an appeal to God FOR a clean conscience.
The word of God said this:
Quote from: Peter
1st Peter 3:21~"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
AN answer OF and an appeal FOR are two different statement altogether. The difference between our participation in the new birth and the RESULT OF being born of God. Selah!
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 12:45:54
Red, the word of God says FOR not from. The NASB is superior to the KJV because it utilized older transcripts, closer in time to the original.

Also, when it is rendered an appeal FOR, it is perfectly congruant with Paul’s baptism in Acts 22. Paul had his sins to his credit and they needed to be addressed. Paul couldn’t appeal to God FROM A clear conscience UNTIL his sins were remitted as Ananias advised. Arise and be baptized and wash away his sins calling upon the Lord, appealing to the Lord FOR a clean conscience, not at all FROM a clean comscience that he didn’t have with his sins still on him.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 13:15:07
The Old English ANSWER means to REQUEST or ASK.  God Elects or invites us to be saved: we answer by REQUESTING what He offers.  The finished work of Jesus as the TYPE or a "pattern intended to be imitated" gives us the confidence to ASK for eternal life.  We OBEY a FORM as ANTI meaning that we are BAPTIZED instead of dying for our own sins which would have no more effect than just claiming to BELIEVE the association between BAPTISM and washing away of sins, remission of sins, giving us A new, holy spirit, being added to the church and having our righteous spirits MADE PERFECT.

    The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21KJV

    However, the definition of words and other versions prove that it is at the time and place of water baptism that we ASK for God to give us a clean conscience which is the gift of A holy spirit.

    And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:21NAS

    Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:21RSV

    (That, by the way, is what baptism pictures for us: In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom by the resurrection of Christ;[c] not because our bodies are washed clean by the water but because in being baptized we are turning to God and asking him to cleanse our hearts from sin.) 1 Peter 3:21LIV
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 14:09:27
19,
Quote
Various ministries sponsor  an event. It lasts 1 or 2 days. Most witness there travel to get to these events. When we lead someone to Christ we get all contact information about those who confess Christ. We give all that information  to the sponsoring ministry and they do the follow up mentoring and baptism.
That at least sounds responsible.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 14:21:46
Michael, I understand he who believes yes there are several verses that state that but what does it mean to believe?

You say that to believe includes confessing Christ before man and repentance  but the bible doesn't stop with just that the bible also includes baptism as part of our faith. It teaches one that is considered a believer was baptized into Christ see Acts 19:1-5

So if the bible includes one that believes as having been baptized into Christ  what do you understand one that believes means?


Before that good question of what it means to believe, really is the question of what repentance means.

Firstly, in scriptures, the word repent means to change one’s mind. Now, concerning the coming of the Lord, God sent John ahead. And what did John the baptist preached, but that, people should repent, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” When John was imprisoned, Jesus preached the same saying “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Now, what is this repentance that John the baptist was sent out to preached? Regarding this, Paul have this to say, "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.” And Paul himself preached to the people, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Clearly the repentance, that is, that was preached by John the baptist and the apostles, even Christ, is a change of mind toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. So now, having pointed that out, we can understand and see that when one is said to have come to repentance, that he turns to God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, what does it mean to believe or have faith in Jesus Christ? I think this does not need much of an explanation as to believe is simply what the word means. It is no different as to what it means to believe in God. One must realize that it is in Christ that one believes, not in another nor in anything. It is in the person, not in anything else. Now, what is with the person is who he is, his words, and his works - his life. That then defines our faith, our belief in Him.

We are saved, not really because we believe, but because of Him, in whom we believe. For salvation is in Christ.

Now, I have been asking this question and you have not given a direct answer. So, I once again open this opportunity for you to answer it here:

When one does repent and believe in God and Christ, will he be saved only when baptized with water and is not saved until then?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 14:38:22
A BELIEVER is one who has accepted the command to be baptized where PISTIS includes the demand to COMPLY.

(http://www.piney.com/Mark.16.Believe.ObeyA.gif)
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 14:42:37
Before that good question of what it means to believe, really is the question of what repentance means.
From Vine's expository and dictionary for the NT:

Repent, Repentance

A. Verbs.

1. metanoeo (G3340), lit., "to perceive afterwards" (meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive"; nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection"), in contrast to pronoeo, "to perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luk_17:3, Luk_17:4, of "repentance" from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, Rev_2:5 (twice), Rev_2:16, Rev_2:21 (twice), RV, "she willeth not to repent" (2nd part); Rev_3:3, Rev_3:19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2Co_12:21. See also the general Note below.
2. metamelomai (G3338), meta, as in No. 1, and melo, "to care for," is used in the passive voice with middle voice sense, signifying "to regret, to repent oneself," Mat_21:29, RV, "repented himself"; Mat_21:32, RV, "ye did (not) repent yourselves" (KJV, "ye repented not"); Mat_27:3, "repented himself"; 2Co_7:8 (twice), RV, "regret" in each case; Heb_7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God.

B. Adjective.

ametameletos (G278), "not repented of, unregretted" (a, negative, and a verbal adjective of A, No. 2), signifies "without change of purpose"; it is said (a) of God in regard to his "gifts and calling," Rom_11:29; (b) of man, 2Co_7:10, RV, "[repentance (metanoia, see C)]...which bringeth no regret" (KJV, "not to be repented of"); the difference between metanoia and metamelomai, illustrated here, is briefly expressed in the contrast between "repentance" and "regret."

C. Noun.

metanoia (G3341), "afterthought, change of mind, repentance," corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of "repentance" from sin or evil, except in Heb_12:17, where the word "repentance" seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac's mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau's birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss.
As regards "repentance" from sin, (a) the requirement by God on man's part is set forth, e.g., in Mat_3:8; Luk_3:8; Act_20:21; Act_26:20; (b) the mercy of God in giving "repentance" or leading men to it is set forth, e.g., in Act_5:31; Act_11:18; Rom_2:4; 2Ti_2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Mat_9:13 and Mar_2:17, as in the RV.
Note: In the OT, "repentance" with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a "repentance" attributed both to God and to man, e.g., Gen_6:6; Exo_32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, see under RECONCILE).
In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to "repentance" from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to "repentance," Mat_4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, "repentance" is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist's preaching; in John's gospel and 1st epistle the effects are stressed, e.g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith (Joh_3:3; Joh_9:38; 1Jo_1:9), as in the NT in general.
Quote from: Michael
When one does repent and believe in God and Christ, will he be saved only when baptized with water and is not saved until then?
Actually one doesn't repent and believe in God and Christ; Rather one believes the Gospel and then repents.  Then if he has been taught properly he who believes and repents is  baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.  He does that to receive forgiveness of his sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 14:49:46
Michael, 4WD has given a direct answer to your question. A believer who repents and is baptised shall be saved. I would argue AND confesses with his lips that Jesus is Lord. One who is not saved is an unbeliever who is condemned.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 14:58:09
The WAY that is called a SECT is very narrow and close to zero find their way there.
If you are walking down the wrong way repentance means that you CHANG DIRECTIONS. 
Those who are BAPTIZED go INTO (EIS) the narrow gate.

Repentance is a good thing and even if a person is very godly they are not IN Christ or CLOTHED with Christ, are added to the Church by Christ and have their spirits translated into the heavenly kingdom.

Having A holy spirit WASHED OF sin or having A good conscience or consciousness are able to read the Word in a one-way sense because a Christian is a DISCIPLE and a disciple is a STUDENT and a student doesn't go to "worship centers" because both ekklesia an synagogues were and are SCHOOLS OF CHRIST  THROUGH THE WORD.

Anyone who refuses to imitate the PATTERN established by Jesus both in HIS BAPTISM and his RAISED TO SPIRITUAL LIFE will never be able to walk in the steps of Jesus. The Father SANCTIFIED Jesus and SENT Him: sanctification is to have A holy spirit or A good conscience.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 15:36:13
Isaiah 1 denounced the sacrificial system and preached baptism which is fulfilled for Christians in Mark 15

THE SUBJECT
Rom. 10:12 For there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Jew and the Greek:
            for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

The Old Testament debunks the superiority of the Jews but that did not stop them from A Search and Destroy Mission.

Rom. 10:13 For whosoever shall CALL UPON THE NAME of the Lord shall be saved.

It is not possible to Receive Christian Baptism without:

Acts 8:37 And Philip said,
        If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
        And he answered and said,
                I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This calling is not Lucado-like and just look up and say "Father." I will post some CALLING on the NAME passages later for the non-readers.

Rom. 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
        and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
        and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Rom. 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel.
        For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom. 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing,
        and hearing by the word of God.
Rom. 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard?
        Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth,
        and their words unto the ends of the world.

The Facts of the Gospel where the Prophets define the future REST both inclusively and exclusively

Is. 53:1 Who hath believed our report?
        and to whom is the ARM of the Lord REVEALED?

Those who reject the nature of Jesus and are baptized without combat will receive A holy spirit without which the ARM of Jesus as His Son WILL NEVER be revealed.

Is. 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,
        and as a root out of a dry ground:
        he hath no form nor comeliness;
        and when we shall see him,
            there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Is. 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men;
        a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:
        and we hid as it were our faces from him;
        he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Is. 53:4  Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:
        yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Is. 53:5 But he was wounded [musically mocked] for our transgressions,
        he was bruised for our iniquities:
        the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
        and with his stripes we are healed.
Is. 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
        we have TURNED every one to his OWN way;
        and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Is. 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
      yet he opened not his mouth:
      he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
        and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
        so he openeth not his mouth.


(http://www.piney.com/Mock.Jesus.Full.size.jpg)

Is. 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment:
        and who shall declare his generation?
       for he was cut off out of the land of the living:
       for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Is. 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked,
        and with the rich in his death;
        because he had done no violence,
        neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Is. 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief:
        when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
        he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,
        and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
Is. 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul,
        and shall be satisfied:
        by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;
        for he shall bear their iniquities.
Is. 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
        and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
        because he hath poured out his soul unto death:
        and he was numbered with the transgressors;
        and he bare the sin of many,
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 22:41:04
From Vine's expository and dictionary for the NT:

Repent, Repentance

A. Verbs.

1. metanoeo (G3340), lit., "to perceive afterwards" (meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive"; nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection"), in contrast to pronoeo, "to perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luk_17:3, Luk_17:4, of "repentance" from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, Rev_2:5 (twice), Rev_2:16, Rev_2:21 (twice), RV, "she willeth not to repent" (2nd part); Rev_3:3, Rev_3:19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2Co_12:21. See also the general Note below.
2. metamelomai (G3338), meta, as in No. 1, and melo, "to care for," is used in the passive voice with middle voice sense, signifying "to regret, to repent oneself," Mat_21:29, RV, "repented himself"; Mat_21:32, RV, "ye did (not) repent yourselves" (KJV, "ye repented not"); Mat_27:3, "repented himself"; 2Co_7:8 (twice), RV, "regret" in each case; Heb_7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God.

B. Adjective.

ametameletos (G278), "not repented of, unregretted" (a, negative, and a verbal adjective of A, No. 2), signifies "without change of purpose"; it is said (a) of God in regard to his "gifts and calling," Rom_11:29; (b) of man, 2Co_7:10, RV, "[repentance (metanoia, see C)]...which bringeth no regret" (KJV, "not to be repented of"); the difference between metanoia and metamelomai, illustrated here, is briefly expressed in the contrast between "repentance" and "regret."

C. Noun.

metanoia (G3341), "afterthought, change of mind, repentance," corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of "repentance" from sin or evil, except in Heb_12:17, where the word "repentance" seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac's mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau's birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss.
As regards "repentance" from sin, (a) the requirement by God on man's part is set forth, e.g., in Mat_3:8; Luk_3:8; Act_20:21; Act_26:20; (b) the mercy of God in giving "repentance" or leading men to it is set forth, e.g., in Act_5:31; Act_11:18; Rom_2:4; 2Ti_2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Mat_9:13 and Mar_2:17, as in the RV.
Note: In the OT, "repentance" with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a "repentance" attributed both to God and to man, e.g., Gen_6:6; Exo_32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, see under RECONCILE).
In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to "repentance" from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to "repentance," Mat_4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, "repentance" is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist's preaching; in John's gospel and 1st epistle the effects are stressed, e.g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith (Joh_3:3; Joh_9:38; 1Jo_1:9), as in the NT in general.


As I have discussed, in scriptures, the word repent means to change one’s mind.

It is fundamentally tied to the mind or heart. In terms of salvation, it denotes a turning away from unbelief, mistrust and rebellion against God and toward complete reliance upon God's forgiveness and favor. And that, on account of Christ.

Clearly so, repentance, is a change of mind or heart, toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why, we can understand and see that when one is said to have come to repentance, that he turns to God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It must then be realized that believing in Christ is an inseparable part of repentance preached by John the baptist and the apostles, and so then too must we likewise preach.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 - 23:41:25
Quote
Quote from: Michael
When one does repent and believe in God and Christ, will he be saved only when baptized with water and is not saved until then?
Actually one doesn't repent and believe in God and Christ; Rather one believes the Gospel and then repents.  Then if he has been taught properly he who believes and repents is  baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.  He does that to receive forgiveness of his sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What I gather from your answer, in short, is that, for you, it is a YES. By that then, certainly, it means to you that the rite of baptism with water in the name of Christ is necessary for one to be saved.

I respect what it is you believe concerning this, though I beg to disagree. As I have shown and pointed out in my other post (reply #331), believing is an inseparable part of the repentance preached by the apostles.

Besides, we hear from Jesus himself, and He preached "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”  It was a call to repentance, a change of mind and heart concerning the gospel, from unbelief to believing the gospel, and not the other way around.

John the baptist performed a baptism of repentance in the sense that, such baptism leads them to Christ, who was yet to come, for the remission of sins. It was a call for people to change their mind and heart concerning their present ways and belief, that is, from their sins. But that was not all of what this repentance was about. Listen to what he went about preaching, "saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus".

Now, we can learn of Paul, when the Lord Jesus Christ had already ascended back to heaven, preaching the same message to the people, repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, in repentance, one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, without which, repentance remains only to be, if not preparatory as that of John's baptism of repentance, incomplete and meaningless. Now, when Christ had been revealed and had gone back to heaven, He left His disciples, instructing them to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It was for them to baptize and that in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This baptism is different in a sense from that of John's, in that while it is a baptism of repentance, the repentance here not only involves turning away from sins and turning to God, but more importantly and significantly, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 01:22:49
Michael, 4WD has given a direct answer to your question. A believer who repents and is baptised shall be saved. I would argue AND confesses with his lips that Jesus is Lord. One who is not saved is an unbeliever who is condemned.

Yes he did. And clearly you agree with him except that you add the matter of the literal confessing that Jesus is Lord.

So, in reply, I would have to refer you to my response to him in Reply # 332.

In addition to that, with regards the scriptures which says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.", in a word, I would say is none other but "repentance".

In commentary, those who repents not toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ, will not be saved, but will be condemned. And those who repents toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. The matter of baptism here is not as though it is some requirement for one to be saved. Rather, it is the rite by which the repentance of one toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ is profoundly expressed. Needless to say, that this expression is not necessary to God, for God is all knowing and sees all things, even the heart of man.

Then why mention the baptism there? We must be careful not to get out of the context where Jesus said the following "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Let me post a couple of passages to refresh us of the context.

Mark 16:14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

So we can see that Mk. 16:16 was told by Jesus to the eleven disciples, in connection to what He was commanding them to do. It was not something Jesus is commanding to someone else but His 11 disciples. And what He commands of them is, first, to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all, and second, to make disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

It is in this context that Jesus said to them "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." So, one could understand that the baptism is a command to the eleven to obey, and that, in connection to making disciples. Moreover, let's go further to another passage relevant to this matter.

Acts 8:34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?

37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.

And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

From the scriptures cited above, we are told, and it is clear, that what Philip preached to the eunuch is Jesus. Now,   try and ponder upon what the eunuch said next and the answer of Philip. He said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” He wanted to be baptized. Philip in response said to him "If you believe with all your heart, you may."

So, we can see that it necessitates for one to believe with all his heart in Jesus Christ before he may be baptized. Having pointed that out, and going back to Mark 16:16, it is this sense that baptism was mentioned there. A sense that points back to the matter of believing, that is, "believing with all your heart". Apparently, what this says concerning baptism, being mentioned in Mk.16:16, is that, anyone who is baptized is taken to be a truly sincere believer in Christ. Only in this sense and with this sense, that it could be said that anyone who is baptized will be saved. It actually then reinforces and points to the matter of believing, indicative of a "believing with all your heart" sense, and not some salvation rite requirement. 

But though while that could be said, it is in the believing in Jesus Christ that really matters and makes the difference. For it is in believing that one comes to be in Christ. And he is saved, but not on the account his believing nor of his being baptized, nor of anything else for that matter, but on account of Christ.

What I can perhaps say concerning baptism as being a necessary ritual requirement, and that, not really for salvation but to fulfill righteousness, is on the matter of making disciples, as was with the 11 disciples concerning their ministry. Remember, even Jesus was baptized.   
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 11:40:14
Michael, according to scripture when would you say Paul’s sins were forgiven him? And is forgiveness of sin important to one’s salvation?

As to the story of the Eunoch, of course he needed to believe first. No one is contending against that. Belief is always the alpha event, immediately followed by baptism such that all of our faith responses are one continuous motion as they were in the first century, not herky jerky segmented events separated by months.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 12:29:32
Michael, according to scripture when would you say Paul’s sins were forgiven him? And is forgiveness of sin important to one’s salvation?

As to the story of the Eunoch, of course he needed to believe first. No one is contending against that. Belief is always the alpha event, immediately followed by baptism such that all of our faith responses are one continuous motion, not herky jerky segmented events separated by months.


When he repented unto faith in Christ and asked for forgiveness. When exactly was that? It could be anytime from having spoken with Jesus until he was baptized. But that is immaterial to the fact that he was forgiven upon repentance unto faith in Christ and asked for forgiveness.

You asked "And is forgiveness of sin important to one’s salvation?" One is not saved if his sins were not forgiven. It is the first thing that God bestows upon the repentant sinner and unbeliever.

Regarding the Eunuch account, you are right in realizing that he needed to believe with all his heart in Jesus Christ. Now, when Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, do you think Philip did not tell him to believe? I believe he did, else everything would make no sense. Now, have you forgotten what Philip told him with regards his asking to be baptized when they come to some water? Philip said "If you believe with all your heart, you may". Ponder upon
 "you may". What does that tell you?

Now, let's take a situation, if they had not come to some water, in all probability he would not have been baptized at that time. Was he saved by believing at that time or is his salvation wait until he is baptized?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 12:49:02
Now, when Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, do you think Philip did not tell him to believe?
No, Philip didn't tell the eunuch to believe, rather he taught him from the Scriptures, giving him the reason and basis for believing.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 13:00:26
I agree 4WD. Believing is a mental ascent reaction to truth. I doubt Phillip told him to be baptized, but from the teaching Phillip did, it was obvious. I would imagine Phillip relayed Peter’s sermon at Pentecost and other events as well as the OT scriptures that Phillip pointed to as referring to Jesus the Messiah.

Phillip’s answer, “if you believe with all your heart, you may” to the Eunoch’s question about being baptized is exactly in line with other scriptures.  Phillip simply reiterated the pre-requisite of belief that is written all over the NT. Phillip would have been aghast if the Eunoch had said, “I don’t believe, but there is water, can I be baptized.”



Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 14:13:38
Michael do you reckon Paul’s sins were forgiven or remitted by God when Paul did what Ananias said he needed to do? “Why do you tarry arise and be baptized washing away your sins calling upon the Lord.”

And you are right saying no one can be saved without forgiveness of sins, not even Paul. OR ANANIAS WAS COMPLETELY WRONG AND THE HOLY SPIRIT CAPTURED THIS STORY TO CONFUSE US.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 14:53:16
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 12:29:32
Now, when Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, do you think Philip did not tell him to believe?
No, Philip didn't tell the eunuch to believe, rather he taught him from the Scriptures, giving him the reason and basis for believing.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

That's what, or rather, that's who Philip preached.

Acts 8:37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

That's the bottom line of what Philip preached about Jesus to the eunuch.

And as I have said, if after preaching Jesus to the eunuch, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that Philip did not tell him to believe that which he preached about Jesus to him, his preaching would make no sense.

4WD, that Philip taught the eunuch from the Scriptures, giving him the reason and basis for believing is really what you say and not what scriptures say. Though I'd say that it is possible that Philip could have done that.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 15:10:34
If the Eunoch did not believe with his whole heart Phillip would have said “you may not.” Because if he didn’t believe with his whole heart, he would have just gotten wet for no reason in a water hole, and NO baptism, as we understand baptism and its purposes would have occurred. Baptism in Christ’s name always involves believers. Unbelievers can only look forward to condemnation.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 17:43:26
4WD, that Philip taught the eunuch from the Scriptures, giving him the reason and basis for believing is really what you say and not what scriptures say. Though I'd say that it is possible that Philip could have done that.
Once again you demonstrate that you really have no clue what it means to believe and why anyone believes.  One doesn't believe because of any command to do so.  One is convinced by the information and data presented concerning what the truth is.  It is through being convinced of the truth of what is being taught that one believes.  One comes to believe the gospel in exactly the same way that one comes to believe anything  --  it is not by a command to do so; it is by being convinced of the truth of it.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Aug 06, 2018 - 09:18:25
I agree 4WD. Jaime I doubt Phillip told him to be baptized, but from the teaching Phillip did, it was obvious. I would imagine Phillip relayed Peter’s sermon at Pentecost and other events as well as the OT scriptures that Phillip pointed to as referring to Jesus the Messiah.

Phillip’s answer, “if you believe with all your heart, you may” to the Eunoch’s question about being baptized is exactly in line with other scriptures.  Phillip simply reiterated the pre-requisite of belief that is written all over the NT. Phillip would have been aghast if the Eunoch had said, “I don’t believe, but there is water, can I be baptized.”

Jaime, "Believing is a mental ascent reaction to truth" I'd say is lacking, for believing, more than that, comes from the heart and involves the spirit or is spiritual. We don't need to get far to see that, for this is understood right here in what Philip said, "if you believe with all your heart, you may".

We can all speculate as to what Philip may have taught the eunuch. But before we do, if at all we should, we must study and analyze hard enough, for when speculations starts to set foot, the difficulty seems to go away, but the truth is it only makes it more difficult than it already is.

Going to the subject matter, what we read from the passage is that the eunuch was the one who asked, saying "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" The eunuch apparently has some consideration in mind which he thinks hinders his being baptized. That is where his question regarding being baptized was coming from. Think about that for a while and perhaps take some time to consider that. 

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Mon Aug 06, 2018 - 10:21:59
I would assume the Eunoch heard Phillip teaching about what had happened to the 3000 at Pentecost and asked the question, “then what hinders me from being baptized, we have water here.” He likely heard phillip talking about repentance and being baptized. Phillip didn’t mention repentance in the text recalling the story, but why would we assume the Eunoch would not have repented as plenty of other scripture teaches. It doesn’t say he confessed Christ as his savior either, but I see no reason to doubt that he did. Just as I see no reason to doubt that the 3000 also did. Another reason to take scripture cumultively.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Mon Aug 06, 2018 - 10:31:00
Jaime,
Philip would have been there when Peter said "Repent and be baptized".and the eunuch wouldn't have gotten baptized without some discussion about it.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Texas Conservative on Mon Aug 06, 2018 - 10:45:16
From the Hardline King James Version about the Ethiopian Eunuch:

Acts 8

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart that baptism is the point in which sins are remitted, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that baptism is the absolute point of salvation.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Aug 06, 2018 - 10:59:58
Once again you demonstrate that you really have no clue what it means to believe and why anyone believes.  One doesn't believe because of any command to do so.  One is convinced by the information and data presented concerning what the truth is.  It is through being convinced of the truth of what is being taught that one believes.  One comes to believe the gospel in exactly the same way that one comes to believe anything  --  it is not by a command to do so; it is by being convinced of the truth of it.

And you demonstrate the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and ways of man, which sits right at this statement "One comes to believe the gospel in exactly the same way that one comes to believe anything".

And there is nothing spiritual in what you say there about being convinced. It is all of you and by you.

If at all you were, who do you say convicted you of sin?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Tue Aug 07, 2018 - 07:01:00
And you demonstrate the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and ways of man, which sits right at this statement "One comes to believe the gospel in exactly the same way that one comes to believe anything".
Thank you Michael.  You have made my point.  You haven't a clue of why or how you believe.  And it goes beyond that.  Since you don't know why and how you believe, it explains a lot about what you believe.
Quote from: Michael
And there is nothing spiritual in what you say there about being convinced. It is all of you and by you.
No it is not all of me and by me.  It is all about the revelation from God.  It is almost all about the word of God; the written word of God; His special revelation given us through the work of the Holy Spirit. His general revelation that comes to us through His creation, His creative works, supports that special revelation and builds upon it.
Quote from: Michael
If at all you were, who do you say convicted you of sin?
That is an unintelligible sentence.  "If at all you were..." ? ? ? ?  I think I know what you wanted to ask, but I will hold back on an answer until I get a complete sentence that make some modicum of sense.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue Aug 07, 2018 - 10:41:52
I would assume the Eunoch heard Phillip teaching about what had happened to the 3000 at Pentecost and asked the question, “then what hinders me from being baptized, we have water here.” He likely heard phillip talking about repentance and being baptized. Phillip didn’t mention repentance in the text recalling the story, but why would we assume the Eunoch would not have repented as plenty of other scripture teaches. It doesn’t say he confessed Christ as his savior either, but I see no reason to doubt that he did. Just as I see no reason to doubt that the 3000 also did. Another reason to take scripture cumultively.

No need really to assume.

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

That's what scriptures says Philip preached to the eunuch.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Tue Aug 07, 2018 - 10:47:13
Same thing Peter preached to the 3000.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 09:10:27
If the Eunoch did not believe with his whole heart Phillip would have said “you may not.” Because if he didn’t believe with his whole heart, he would have just gotten wet for no reason in a water hole, and NO baptism, as we understand baptism and its purposes would have occurred. Baptism in Christ’s name always involves believers. Unbelievers can only look forward to condemnation.

Philip do not know the heart of the Eunuch. But when Philip heard the confession of the Eunuch, Philip would just have to take the eunuch's confession as truthful. 

Baptism in Christ's name involves unbelievers who were granted repentance by God and, repented towards God and faith in Christ Jesus. Though that is not to say that every one who were baptized, were true converts or were baptized in the true sense of baptism. And these baptized people who were not true converts or believers, together with those who rejected the gospel of Christ, those who do not believe, will be condemned.

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 09:22:10
Baptism in Christ's name involves unbelievers
Where in the Bible do you read of any unbelievers being baptized? You don't.  So it is clear that you are confused.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 10:17:58
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Mon Aug 06, 2018 - 10:59:58
And you demonstrate the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and ways of man, which sits right at this statement "One comes to believe the gospel in exactly the same way that one comes to believe anything".
Thank you Michael.  You have made my point.  You haven't a clue of why or how you believe.  And it goes beyond that.  Since you don't know why and how you believe, it explains a lot about what you believe.

And the point is that you demonstrate the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and ways of man. I don't know if that is something to really be grateful about.

I know why I believe and how I believe. And it's not the same as to why and how you believe. And having said that, you would not know why and how one like me believes. No wonder why we disagree on many about the spiritual things of God written in scriptures. 

Quote
Quote from: Michael
And there is nothing spiritual in what you say there about being convinced. It is all of you and by you.
No it is not all of me and by me.  It is all about the revelation from God.  It is almost all about the word of God; the written word of God; His special revelation given us through the work of the Holy Spirit. His general revelation that comes to us through His creation, His creative works, supports that special revelation and builds upon it.
Quote
Quote from: Michael
If at all you were, who do you say convicted you of sin?
That is an unintelligible sentence.  "If at all you were..." ? ? ? ?  I think I know what you wanted to ask, but I will hold back on an answer until I get a complete sentence that make some modicum of sense.

Would you say that it is the Holy Spirit that convicted you of sin? 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 10:34:42
No need really to assume.

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

That's what scriptures says Philip preached to the eunuch.

Same thing Peter preached to the 3000.

We only need to see what's written in Acts 2:14-41 and Acts 8:26-38 to see the difference, even while they both preached Jesus.

This does not take away your assumptions nor does it change the fact that all is but your assumptions.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 10:45:02
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 09:10:27
Baptism in Christ's name involves unbelievers
Where in the Bible do you read of any unbelievers being baptized? You don't.  So it is clear that you are confused.

You quoted an incomplete statement of mine and make it appear to mean something I did not mean to say. That's truly unfair and malicious.

This what I said "Baptism in Christ's name involves unbelievers who were granted repentance by God and, repented towards God and faith in Christ Jesus."
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 12:04:08
Michael, the story of the eunoch  does not counter or negate what happened in Acts 2. If it did, all of us would have problems with making sense of scripture. Scripture is to be taken cumulatively one precept upon another. We get in trouble if we pit verses against other verses.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 13:41:24
This what I said "Baptism in Christ's name involves unbelievers who were granted repentance by God and, repented towards God and faith in Christ Jesus."
I know what you said and it absolutely WRONG ! !  Never in the NT is it ever said that an unbeliever was baptized  --  NEVER ! !
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: RB on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 14:31:51
I know what you said and it absolutely WRONG ! !  Never in the NT is it ever said that an unbeliever was baptized  --  NEVER ! !
4WD, Michael never said that~he said this :
Quote from: Michael Reply #350 on: Today at 09:10:27
Baptism in Christ's name involves unbelievers who were granted repentance by God and, repented towards God and faith in Christ Jesus.
Now, I have not read back very many posts, but a few, so I cannot comment on all that Michael believes but on this statement he is NOT saying that when people are baptized they are unbelievers~even though millions have been baptized that were not true believers that God never truly granted repentance and faith to. This to me is all Michael is saying in the last few posts. A man MUST be a believer before he can be baptized into the religion of Jesus Christ. In Baptism we take on the name of Jesus Christ....Christian.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 15:40:35
I didn’t think God “grants” repentance. He grants forgiveness.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 16:43:06
Now, I have not read back very many posts, but a few, so I cannot comment on all that Michael believes but on this statement he is NOT saying that when people are baptized they are unbelievers~even though millions have been baptized that were not true believers that God never truly granted repentance and faith to. This to me is all Michael is saying in the last few posts. A man MUST be a believer before he can be baptized into the religion of Jesus Christ. In Baptism we take on the name of Jesus Christ....Christian.
If they are unbelievers what are they repenting of?  The whole concept that he puts forward makes mockery of God, His son and the cross, and the gospel.  The whole point of the gospel is to produce believers; believers who then repent and submit to being baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the gift [the indwelling] of the Holy Spirit.  Michael is so thoroughly confused in all of it.  And I must say, RB, you are confused as well if you think any of what he says makes any sense at all. 

As I pointed out before to Michael,  there is not a single instance in the entire NT of an unbeliever being baptized. Moreover, there is not a single instance in the NT of an unbeliever repenting.  It also never talks about being baptized into any religion.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 22:24:58
I stumbled onto dangerous territory posting WUEST who contradicts those who misquote him. I will try again.

Al Maxey promoted by the REformer denies ALL of Holy Scripture about baptism and always BEGINS by slandering a Godly brother.

Al Maxey: Therefore, the faith one has BEFORE baptism is insufficient to bring about salvation. However, mere seconds later, after one's nose breaks the surface of the water of the baptistery, THEN one suddenly and miraculously is in possession of the "fullness of faith" (saving faith). What about Cornelius?,

Al Maxey: I asked Hugh. We are told he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually" (Acts 10:2). This man was informed by an angel that his "prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God" (vs. 4). He was "a RIGHTEOUS and God-fearing man" (vs. 22). While Peter was still speaking to Cornelius, and before his baptism, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon him by God, and Cornelius was "speaking with tongues and exalting God" (vs. 44-46).

Al and his SECT will never know that Righteousness means "NOT ceremonially disqualified." God revealed to Peter but not to theologians that contrary to the Jews Jesus died to declare that Gentiles nor swine are IMPURE. 

When God pours out His Spirit the RESULT is that someone SPEAKS. All of the words translated as spirit literally means WIND: the example Peter speaks of was the SIGNS of WIND (breath) and FIRE. Cornelius-a speaker of the ROMAN language spoke in words the Doubting Jews could understand.

Al Maxey Was this man, at this point, lost?! Was his faith insufficient in God's sight? According to Hugh Fulford, it was! Thus, had Cornelius died before getting to the water, he would have been cast headlong into hell by our merciful Father. Poor Cornelius -- with God's Spirit upon him, he would have marched himself right into the flames of perdition, speaking in tongues and praising God all the way there!! What nonsense!! And yet, it is the view that must ultimately and inevitably be taken if one embraces the sacramental view of baptism. This is why Darrell Broking, in his debate with me, declared, "Cornelius was no more saved when he spoke in tongues than was Balaam's ass" (see my analysis of this in Reflections #472 -- Cornelius and Balaam's Ass: Was this Godly Centurion as Damned as a Donkey prior to his Baptism?).   

Al Maxey will never be able to comprehend that the most RIGHTEOUS person could not be added to the KINGDOM or Church without ASKING Jesus Christ PERMISSION.

AL MAXEY defended by those who spread hatred  "QUOTES" Kenneth Wuest BUT Wuest MARKS THEM.

God had granted both Jews and Gentiles repentance or the power to change directions and be baptized into Christ on equal footing.'

The prophetic promise and the commands of Jesus was to preach to the nations or Gentiles. Peter was in danger when sent to tell Cornelius how to be saved because the judaizers who denies that the Gentiles could repent and be baptized.  This granting was an offered "good news" but was accepted by being baptized.

When God poured out His Spirit the only thing that happens is that the person SPEAKS what the Spirit conveys from God.

Wuest pages 215-2157/size]

(http://www.piney.com/Wuestp215.gif)
Wuest-p216.gif
(http://www.piney.com/Wuest-p216.gif)
(http://www.piney.com/Wuestp217x.gif)
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: RB on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 04:07:38
I didn’t think God “grants” repentance. He grants forgiveness.
Please consider:
Quote from: Paul
2nd Timothy 2:25~"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
Yet, it is also true that we should teach and command men to repent of any evil in their life, lest they too perish in the lake of fire like the vilest of sinners will with confidence that they were good Christians.
Quote from: Jesus Christ
Luke 13:1-5~"There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
The Lord smote my spirit this morning as I was thinking of 2nd Timothy 2:25~"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves".....Many times we forget to instruct in the spirit of meekness, many times people provoke us and we like Moses get angry and hit the rock (people's hard heads~ ::smile::) instead of speaking to the rock in meekness.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 11:06:09
2Tim. 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker:
        of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Tim. 2:18 WHO concerning the TRUTH have erred,
        saying that the resurrection is past already;
        and overthrow the faith of some.
2Tim. 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure,
        having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.
        And, Let EVERY ONE that nameth the name of Christ DEPART FROM INIQUITY
2Tim. 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver,
        but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2Tim. 2:21 IF a man therefore PURGE HIMSELF from these,
        HE SHALL BE a vessel unto honour, sanctified,
        and meet for the master’s use,
        and prepared unto every good work.
2Tim. 2:22  [YOU] Flee also youthful lusts:
        but  [YOU] follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace,
        with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
2Tim. 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid,
        knowing that they do gender strifes.
2Tim. 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive;
        but be gentle unto all men, APT to teach, patient,
2Tim. 2:25 In meekness INSTRUCTING those that oppose themselves;
        IF PERADVENTURE will give them repentance
        to the acknowledging of the truth;

2Tim. 2:26 And that THEY MAY RECOVER THEMSELVES
         out of the SNARE of the devil,
         who are taken captive by him at HIS will.

The Truth is the Word is God's Regulative principle which outlaws everything but READ and SPEAK because the outlawed personal opinion is Dangerous and disrespects the Spirit OF God who inspired CONTEXT.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 12:17:47
I have added Wuest pages 215 through 217 ABOVE to debunk defending people who are Purpose Driven truth twisters.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 12:31:18
Red, if man refuses to repent is it because God didn’t GRANT it? When the Bible says repent, does man have an out if he doesn’t because God didn’t grant it?

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/2-tim-225-can-we-repent-or-does-god-cause-us-to-repent/ (http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/2-tim-225-can-we-repent-or-does-god-cause-us-to-repent/)
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 16:09:45
Just seen on a web page:

OPPORTUNITY: “The enemy gave us an opportunity to surrender.”
ACTION: “We surrendered to the enemy.”
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 17:57:40
Jaime,
Quote
I didn’t think God “grants” repentance. He grants forgiveness.
In what sense do you think the circumcised believers meant
Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”  ?

Bear in mind they did accept this.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 18:35:37
They were granted the “opportunity” for repentance as a group. An opportunity they did not previously have as Gentiles. Indiviual repentance was something they had to do of their individual free will, in my opinion as well as the author of the link I posted in reply #364.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 19:05:46
Michael, the story of the eunoch  does not counter or negate what happened in Acts 2. If it did, all of us would have problems with making sense of scripture. Scripture is to be taken cumulatively one precept upon another. We get in trouble if we pit verses against other verses.

And nobody is saying it does.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 19:24:59
Do you accept that all of scripture is to be taken cumulativey? As in if one verse says believe and one says repent then the BiBle is saying BOTH are involved? Or do you still point to the believe and be saved verses as all THE salvation verses? I contend it ALL
applies. If you do too, we are in agreement.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 19:41:29
Jaime,
Quote
They were granted the “opportunity” for repentance as a group. An opportunity they did not previously have as Gentiles. Indiviual repentance was something they had to do of their individual free will, in my opinion as well as the author of the link I posted in reply #364.
I understand it as that God led and moved any number of gentiles ultimately to repentance, namely Cornelius and company. Incidentally, this also showed that God would now accept all Gentiles.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 20:19:21
With Cornelius God showed that he grants the OPPORTUNITY for the gentiles to repent. Just as importantly He showed Peter and the rest of the disciples.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 20:31:36
How does this compare to John 1:12, where it says God granted believers the RIGHt to BECOME sons of God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Thu Aug 09, 2018 - 20:48:54
Abraham and his family was to be a blessing to all nations. However, in Genesis 49 Jacob warned the godly not to assembly with (synagogue) with Levi nor to enter into a covenant with them. Always the spiritual Covenant was made by God in Christ (his anointed) and the Law of Moses given because of transgression did not change that covenant which was NOT Jewish.

All of Jacob had been scatted and died except a small remnant of Jacob. A relative small part of Judah survived.

Gal. 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Peter heard the direct command of Jesus that the gospel was for all nations but his tardiness hardly makes him into a Pope.

The gospel was to begin with Jews but ultimately was to ALL NATIONS.  God never had Dogish people but the Jews had to see God's strong arm before they could reluctantly accept the fact that God is not a respecter of people. 

The Jewish system was a CARNAL system which had no saving powers.  God judged the Gentiles based on their own conduct and never commanded a clergy institution to convince people that God will HURT you if you don't engage in ceremonial legalism.


(http://www.piney.com/Isaiah.49.Preserved.RemnantA.gif)
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 08:33:38
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 10:45:02
This what I said "Baptism in Christ's name involves unbelievers who were granted repentance by God and, repented towards God and faith in Christ Jesus."
I know what you said and it absolutely WRONG ! !  Never in the NT is it ever said that an unbeliever was baptized  --  NEVER ! !

There is a big difference between knowing what I said and understanding what I said.


Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 08:39:05
Jamie,
Quote
How does this compare to John 1:12, where it says God granted believers the RIGHt to BECOME sons of God.
Good point. But I think in the case of Cornelius & Company, and with many others, that God doesn't just give the opportunity, He also helps the process along by sending people (or an angel) to them and convicting their heart as described in John 16:8-11. The repentance, however, is still there's to do.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Ginger Rella on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 09:01:20
who were granted repentance by God and, repented towards God and faith in Christ Jesus.[/b]"

WHAT AM I MISSING????????????????????????????????????????????

God does not "grant"  repentence. IF somehow I missed that word in connection to repentence in the Holy word... please give me line and verse.

According to Merriam Webster: granted means

Definition of grant

granted; granting; grants
transitive verb

1 a : to consent to carry out for a person : allow fulfillment of grant a request
b : to permit as a right, privilege, or favor luggage allowances granted to passengers

You DO NOT ask God to grant you permission to repent..... YOU REPENT because it is commanded of you to do so..... It is not a permission it is an order.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/thoughts-on-jesuss-demand-to-repent  ( note it says Jesus' demand to repent)

and  this has some points to my thinking.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-repentance

You can definitely repent of any sin and not be saved and not even be a Christian but your conscience can tell you it just isn't right.

But all Christians should turn from their sins as demanded by Jesus if for no other reason then to show God their love and respect.

God does not grant you permission to turn from your sins



Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 10:40:08
WHAT AM I MISSING????????????????????????????????????????????

God does not "grant"  repentence. IF somehow I missed that word in connection to repentence in the Holy word... please give me line and verse.

According to Merriam Webster: granted means

Definition of grant

granted; granting; grants
transitive verb

1 a : to consent to carry out for a person : allow fulfillment of grant a request
b : to permit as a right, privilege, or favor luggage allowances granted to passengers

You DO NOT ask God to grant you permission to repent..... YOU REPENT because it is commanded of you to do so..... It is not a permission it is an order.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/thoughts-on-jesuss-demand-to-repent  ( note it says Jesus' demand to repent)

and  this has some points to my thinking.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-repentance

You can definitely repent of any sin and not be saved and not even be a Christian but your conscience can tell you it just isn't right.

But all Christians should turn from their sins as demanded by Jesus if for no other reason then to show God their love and respect.

God does not grant you permission to turn from your sins
Romans 2 is one of Paul's great chapters on repentance. A wholesome subject.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 12:40:10
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 08, 2018 - 10:45:02
who were granted repentance by God and, repented towards God and faith in Christ Jesus.[/b]"
WHAT AM I MISSING????????????????????????????????????????????

God does not "grant"  repentence. IF somehow I missed that word in connection to repentence in the Holy word... please give me line and verse.

According to Merriam Webster: granted means

Definition of grant

granted; granting; grants
transitive verb

1 a : to consent to carry out for a person : allow fulfillment of grant a request
b : to permit as a right, privilege, or favor luggage allowances granted to passengers

You DO NOT ask God to grant you permission to repent..... YOU REPENT because it is commanded of you to do so..... It is not a permission it is an order.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/thoughts-on-jesuss-demand-to-repent  ( note it says Jesus' demand to repent)

and  this has some points to my thinking.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-repentance

You can definitely repent of any sin and not be saved and not even be a Christian but your conscience can tell you it just isn't right.

But all Christians should turn from their sins as demanded by Jesus if for no other reason then to show God their love and respect.

God does not grant you permission to turn from your sins

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

2 Timothy 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

The Greek word translated grant is:

Strong's Concordance
didómi: to give (in various senses lit. or fig.)
Original Word: δίδωμι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: didómi
Phonetic Spelling: (did'-o-mee)
Short Definition: I offer, give
Definition: I offer, give; I put, place.

Other Bible translations goes:

KJV   In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

ASV   in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth,

The Greek word translated "repent" is:

metanoeó: to change one's mind or purpose
Original Word: μετανοέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: metanoeó
Phonetic Spelling: (met-an-o-eh'-o)
Short Definition: I repent, change my mind
Definition: I repent, change my mind, change the inner man (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God), repent.


The word repent means to change one’s mind.

It is fundamentally tied to the mind or heart. In terms of salvation, it denotes a turning away from unbelief, mistrust and rebellion against God and toward complete reliance upon God's forgiveness and favor. And that, on account of Christ.

Clearly so, repentance, is a change of mind or heart, toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why, we can understand and see that when one is said to have come to repentance, that he turns to God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It must then be realized that believing in Christ is an inseparable part of repentance preached by John the baptist and the apostles.



Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 12:42:39
I didn’t think God “grants” repentance. He grants forgiveness.

Please see my post in reply # 378
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 12:45:15
The METANOIA involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God in faith.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 12:54:28
If they are unbelievers what are they repenting of?  The whole concept that he puts forward makes mockery of God, His son and the cross, and the gospel.  The whole point of the gospel is to produce believers; believers who then repent and submit to being baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the gift [the indwelling] of the Holy Spirit.  Michael is so thoroughly confused in all of it.  And I must say, RB, you are confused as well if you think any of what he says makes any sense at all. 


Perhaps you don't get what is the repentance preached by John the baptist and the apostles.

Please see my post in reply # 378.

John the baptist and the apostles went out preaching to  unbelievers, that they should repent towards God and faith in Christ. The repentance obviously is that of a change of mind or heart, toward God and faith in Lord Jesus Christ by the unbeliever.

This repentance is obviously not for the believer, but for the unbeliever.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 13:36:59
God granted the OPPORTUNITY for the gentiles to repent. Before that they had none. God does not repent FOR anyone. Similar to John 1:12 God gives us the RIGHT to be sons of God when we believe.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: 4WD on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 13:53:55
Perhaps you don't get what is the repentance preached by John the baptist and the apostles.

Please see my post in reply # 378.

John the baptist and the apostles went out preaching to  unbelievers, that they should repent towards God and faith in Christ. The repentance obviously is that of a change of mind or heart, toward God and faith in Lord Jesus Christ by the unbeliever.

This repentance is obviously not for the believer, but for the unbeliever.
Again, the complete irrationality of Michael's thought process.  There is so little logic in all of it that it is really sad; more than sad; rather pathetic.  If someone doesn't believe in God, in Jesus, and in the gospel, then what is there that he is to turn from and turn to?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: faroukfarouk on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 14:01:00
I reckon faith is all tied up Scripturally with conviction of sin and repentance.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 14:35:51
Red, if man refuses to repent is it because God didn’t GRANT it? When the Bible says repent, does man have an out if he doesn’t because God didn’t grant it?

[url]http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/2-tim-225-can-we-repent-or-does-god-cause-us-to-repent/[/url] ([url]http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/2-tim-225-can-we-repent-or-does-god-cause-us-to-repent/[/url])


With due respect to RB and Jaime, I'd just like to comment on this.

Firstly, we should not lose sight that when we speak here of repentance, that is in connection to salvation, that it refers to a change of mind, and is not of a choice.  In terms of salvation then, repentance is unto God and faith in Christ. The choice really does not lie in the repentance, but on the object of repentance. 

The repenting of one is not God doing it for them. Repentance, as I pointed out in my other post, is fundamentally tied to the mind or heart. It therefore involves an inner conviction. In connection to the unbeliever's change of mind or repentance unto God and faith in Christ, he obviously was convicted in his heart concerning God and Christ. That sir is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of the person. This work happens in the heart of the man. It is something spiritual.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 14:41:40
Godly sorrow is Felt by the sinner. Acceptance of His conviction, if you will. Godly sorrow leads to repentance, and repentance leads to salvation.
 (2 Corinthians 7:10). The 3000 were convicted unto Godly sorrow. Their Godly sorrow leads to THEIR repentance. Their desire or change of mind to change directions and walk towards God. NOT an irresistable tractor beam. Free will is NOT overridden. God doesn’t want or need robots. He desires free will agents choosing to love him, as any parent desires. If not ALL WOULD BE SAVED, and we know that is not the case. Some resistance is possible or all would succumb to God “pulling the puppet strings”. If God’s conviction is irresistable, then All will come to Godly sorrow and ultimately repentance. We as parents do not want our kids hypnotized into loving and obeying us. We want their love, devotion and obedience by choice or free will and so does God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Fri Aug 10, 2018 - 16:59:46
faroukfarouk,
Faith repentance and baptism are all intertwined. They're combined in any which way in Scripture. Sometimes it mentions faith, and you know that at least repentance is not excluded. Sometimes it mentions repentance and you know that it includes Faith. Sometimes it mentions baptism as a part of faith. And sometimes it mentions baptism and you know that faith is a part of it.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Aug 11, 2018 - 13:16:22
Godly sorrow is Felt by the sinner. Acceptance of His conviction, if you will. Godly sorrow leads to repentance, and repentance leads to salvation.
 (2 Corinthians 7:10). The 3000 were convicted unto Godly sorrow. Their Godly sorrow leads to THEIR repentance. Their desire or change of mind to change directions and walk towards God. NOT an irresistable tractor beam. Free will is NOT overridden. God doesn’t want or need robots. He desires free will agents choosing to love him, as any parent desires. If not ALL WOULD BE SAVED, and we know that is not the case. Some resistance is possible or all would succumb to God “pulling the puppet strings”. If God’s conviction is irresistable, then All will come to Godly sorrow and ultimately repentance. We as parents do not want our kids hypnotized into loving and obeying us. We want their love, devotion and obedience by choice or free will and so does God.

Nobody is saying anything about "irresistible tractor", "robots" or "pulling the puppet strings", except you here.

You said "If God’s conviction is irresistable...".

As I said:

Quote
The repenting of one is not God doing it for them. Repentance, as I pointed out in my other post, is fundamentally tied to the mind or heart. It therefore involves an inner conviction. In connection to the unbeliever's change of mind or repentance unto God and faith in Christ, he obviously was convicted in his heart concerning God and Christ. That sir is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of the person. This work happens in the heart of the man. It is something spiritual.

Do you not believe that it is the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, that convicts? The Holy Spirit was sent to the world. He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Do you not believe that?

And one must not forget, that while the HS will convict the world, not all will repent towards God and faith in Christ.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 11, 2018 - 13:45:19
Yes the Holy spirit convicts and no, not all will heed the conviction and repent.

As to the the robot or puppet statement, some here contend that God saves who he wills and his conviction is irresistable. I say no it is not irresistable. Man’s free will is always in play. God wants a free will decision to love and obey him, just as we do from our kids as parents. If this wasn’t the case Adam and Eve would have never fallen for the schemes of the Devil if God’s drawing was irresistable. Man most definitely has a role in his eternal destiny. God and only God is responsible for and offers the priceless free gift but not all will accept it. Every invitation song ever written or sung was about this. If this is not the case, evangelism would be moot and senseless.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: e.r.m. on Sat Aug 11, 2018 - 15:53:06
Agreed.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Aug 11, 2018 - 17:02:28
Jesus knew that most of the earth's population was OF the World: While He died for all sin He didn't pray for the WORLD.  He said that those who care speak HIS WORD (Logos) would be marked and hated as not being OF the World as He was not OF the World.

His WAY was called a SECT: It is a road or pattern so narrow that almost no one can find it.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

g3875. parakletos, par-ak´-lay-tos; an intercessor, consoler: — advocate, comforter.

In John 14 Jesus said I WILL COME TO YOU: he would be in Holy Spirit State.

1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
      And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

g3875.  parakletos, par-ak´-lay-tos; an intercessor, consoler: — advocate, comforter.

John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the WORLD of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

The World is the Kosmos, the Ecumenical or the kingdom of the Devil. Jesus does not CAUSE the world to be evil but He JUDGES it and marks it so true disciples will not "fellowship" even as Paul separated the disciples.

John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
John 16:11 Of judgment, because the PRINCE of this world is judged.

When the Holy Spirit appeared to Paul it was the Spirit OF Jesus.

Watch for the Angels of Light in the Morning: they WILL silence the WORDS of Jesus.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: yogi bear on Sat Aug 11, 2018 - 17:36:57
Michael, Lets think on this a little. You are saying that to you repentance is like convicted in the heart to believe the gospel Christ.

I ask you to go to Acts 2 where the kingdom that was to come came and see how the Spirit through Peter deals with what you are trying to pass off as repentance.

When we read this chapter we see Peter preaching Jesus dbr (the gospel of Christ) to the crowd. They were pricked to the heart (as you say) by what was preached. What happened next was they asked Peter what must we do and he told them to REPENT and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and they shall receive the promised spirit.

Looks like Peter disagrees with you that the pricked in the heart was the same as you are trying to say. They believed but yet had to turn to living the belief out repentance is living out the belief. It is not just a heart felt thing but a walk with Christ. It shows in the way you live your life. It is a lot more to it than you give it credit.

Peter seen that they believed but yet told them to repent so the heart felt conviction was not repentance they yet had to repent. That is the walk in the new way we were shown. Turn from our worldly walk to walking in the spirit with Christ.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Kenneth Sublett on Sat Aug 11, 2018 - 17:43:08
That's true and of those people NOT OF TRUTH a hard sell will have no effect:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

If you have to pass judgment on the Words revealed by the SPIRIT there is no way to convince people.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sat Aug 11, 2018 - 17:46:11
What the 3000 experienced was Godly sorrow, and Godly sorrow leads to repentance which they did and were baptized. Repentance is a change of mind and direction of your walk. And Godly sorrow for what they were convicted of is not repentance. Godly sorrow LEADS to repentance.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 01:25:31
Jaime,In what sense do you think the circumcised believers meant
Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”  ?

Bear in mind they did accept this.


Acts 11: ["17a & 17b MINE]

8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’

12 Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17a If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, 17b who was I that I could withstand God?

Peter particularly stressed God's initiative in Acts 11:8, 9, 12, 15-17a, as well as his own inability to withstand God in Acts 11: 17b).

Acts 11:14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.

Cornelius and "all" his "household" were not "saved" from God's wrath until they heard and believed the gospel of Jesus Christ that Peter proclaimed to them (v. 14).

Acts 11:16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

Clearly the baptism of the Holy Spirit is what he referred to in verse 16.

Peter identified "believing in the Lord Jesus Christ" as the only necessary prerequisite to receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit (v. 17a). 

Now, going back to v.2-3, it shows here that those of the circumcision contended with him, concerning his eating with the Gentiles. In verses 4-18, Peter explains. And by appealing to what God had done (v. 17a), he justified his eating with Gentiles in Caesarea.

The subject verse 18, shows that Peter's explanation was satisfactory to his critics. His Jewish brethren agreed that God was saving Gentiles, by granting them repentance.  And that, for that matter, is of repentance to life.

This is the point in scriptures where the truth of the matter that salvation is not only for the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well. And that, in the same way as for the Jews, by repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

What can be seen in the case of Cornelius and his household, is that, they believed the words they heard from Peter about Jesus, that even before confessing that with their mouth and even before they were baptized, they were saved. And that is clearly evidenced by the Lord Jesus Christ's baptizing them with the Holy Spirit. They were saved, and were baptized with the Holy Spirit because they repented unto believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 01:29:47
They were granted the “opportunity” for repentance as a group. An opportunity they did not previously have as Gentiles. Indiviual repentance was something they had to do of their individual free will, in my opinion as well as the author of the link I posted in reply #364.

It's not "opportunity" that was granted to the Gentiles. It is repentance to life.

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 02:32:14
Do you accept that all of scripture is to be taken cumulativey? As in if one verse says believe and one says repent then the BiBle is saying BOTH are involved? Or do you still point to the believe and be saved verses as all THE salvation verses? I contend it ALL
applies. If you do too, we are in agreement.


I accept all of scriptures.

With regards the matter of repentance, faith, and baptism, I'd say they must be taken, not really cumulatively, but in their respective meaning, significance, and how they are related to each other.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 03:23:04
Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 12:54:28
Perhaps you don't get what is the repentance preached by John the baptist and the apostles.

Please see my post in reply # 378.

John the baptist and the apostles went out preaching to  unbelievers, that they should repent towards God and faith in Christ. The repentance obviously is that of a change of mind or heart, toward God and faith in Lord Jesus Christ by the unbeliever.

This repentance is obviously not for the believer, but for the unbeliever.
Again, the complete irrationality of Michael's thought process.  There is so little logic in all of it that it is really sad; more than sad; rather pathetic.  If someone doesn't believe in God, in Jesus, and in the gospel, then what is there that he is to turn from and turn to?

It seems that you only want to hear yourself. Please try to hear what I say in my post that you quoted and perhaps you will understand what I'm saying.

You are apparently talking of repentance from sinful acts, when I have been telling you what repentance is that which John the baptist and the apostles preached in their ministry to the unbelieving world.

You argue "If someone doesn't believe in God, in Jesus, and in the gospel, then what is there that he is to turn from and turn to?"

If I were to put that in other words, it would be something like:

What is there that an unbeliever is to turn from and turn to?

OR

What is there that an unbeliever is to repent from and to?

If you don't know the answer to that, then I'd say that is what really is pathetic.

You see, an unbeliever is one who does not believe in God, or one who does not believe in the true God. The unbeliever is called upon to repent from this and believe in the true God and in Him whom He sent, Jesu Christ.

Now, when does one repent towards God and faith in Christ? When convicted that he is in the wrong and so is sinful, and convicted that he doesn't have the truth and is not in the truth, turning away from his unbelief and turning to faith in God.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 03:47:04
Yes the Holy spirit convicts and no, not all will heed the conviction and repent.

As to the the robot or puppet statement, some here contend that God saves who he wills and his conviction is irresistable. I say no it is not irresistable. Man’s free will is always in play. God wants a free will decision to love and obey him, just as we do from our kids as parents. If this wasn’t the case Adam and Eve would have never fallen for the schemes of the Devil if God’s drawing was irresistable. Man most definitely has a role in his eternal destiny. God and only God is responsible for and offers the priceless free gift but not all will accept it. Every invitation song ever written or sung was about this. If this is not the case, evangelism would be moot and senseless.


I'm glad we both believe that it is the Holy spirit that convicts. And that however, not all will repent towards God and faith in Christ.

As with regards your statement "Man most definitely has a role in his eternal destiny.", I'd say that the destiny of man had been decided as far back in the beginning, by the will of Adam, when he sinned in the garden of Eden as written in Genesis. But all thanks and praise be to God for His salvation, else all man has condemnation and hell as his eternal destiny. Now, God's salvation is Christ. The only way then to have the salvation of God is for one to be in Christ. As all, are in Adam condemned, so also, all, are in Christ saved.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 03:58:17
Michael, Lets think on this a little. You are saying that to you repentance is like convicted in the heart to believe the gospel Christ.

I ask you to go to Acts 2 where the kingdom that was to come came and see how the Spirit through Peter deals with what you are trying to pass off as repentance.

When we read this chapter we see Peter preaching Jesus dbr (the gospel of Christ) to the crowd. They were pricked to the heart (as you say) by what was preached. What happened next was they asked Peter what must we do and he told them to REPENT and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and they shall receive the promised spirit.

Looks like Peter disagrees with you that the pricked in the heart was the same as you are trying to say. They believed but yet had to turn to living the belief out repentance is living out the belief. It is not just a heart felt thing but a walk with Christ. It shows in the way you live your life. It is a lot more to it than you give it credit.

Peter seen that they believed but yet told them to repent so the heart felt conviction was not repentance they yet had to repent. That is the walk in the new way we were shown. Turn from our worldly walk to walking in the spirit with Christ.


You said "You are saying that to you repentance is like convicted in the heart to believe the gospel Christ."

Did I say that? No, that's not what I'm saying. Please refer me to the post where you thought I said that.

Nonetheless, conviction is different from repentance.

 

Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 07:30:37
Michael, don’t forget to be IN Christ, we are baptized into Christ. We clothe ourselves WITH him at baptism. That is If you believe ALL of scripture, and you said you do.

Also, do you believe man has freewill in accepting the gospel? I know someone that was drawn by God for years, but stubbornly refuses to accept the gospel because he doesn’t want to repent of what he is doing. God offers and man accepts or refuses ultimately. Man’s free will is NOT thwarted. Though God’s Spirit does draw us.

If God attached an irresistable tether to us, there would be no reason whatsoever for the Great Commission and most of our evangelism efforts.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 08:23:28
Michael, don’t forget to be IN Christ, we are baptized into Christ. We clothe ourselves WITH him at baptism. That is If you believe ALL of scripture, and you said you do.

Also, do you believe man has freewill in accepting the gospel? I know someone that was drawn by God for years, but stubbornly refuses to accept the gospel because he doesn’t want to repent of what he is doing. God offers and man accepts or refuses ultimately. Man’s free will is NOT thwarted. Though God’s Spirit does draw us.

If God attached an irresistable tether to us, there would be no reason whatsoever for the Great Commission and most of our evangelism efforts.


Jaime, I want you to consider this:

1 Corinthians 10:1-3
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food,

Can you explain to me what "all were BAPTIZED INTO Moses" means?

Romans 6: 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

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

What do you say what it means by "baptized into Christ" in the verses cited?

You said "do you believe man has freewill in accepting the gospel?"

My answer is YES.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 11:30:02
I always took the being baptized into Moses as being saved from death by Pharoah’s hand through the water of the Red Sea.

From the verses you quoted, being baptized into Christ is joining in his death burial and resurrection through baptism. We go down into the water as our old man, and we raise up out of the water as a new  creation to walk in newness of life.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 11:59:54
Jaime, I want you to consider this:

1 Corinthians 10:1-3
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food,

Can you explain to me what "all were BAPTIZED INTO Moses" means?

Romans 6: 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

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

What do you say what it means by "baptized into Christ" in the verses cited?

You said "do you believe man has freewill in accepting the gospel?"

My answer is YES.


I always took the being baptized into Moses as being saved from death by Pharoah’s hand through the water of the Red Sea.

From the verses you quoted, being baptized into Christ is joining in his death burial and resurrection through baptism. We go down into the water as our old man, and we raise up out of the water as a new  creation to walk in newness of life.


The question really is what the phrase "baptized into" means and what "baptized" there means. So, can you tell us?
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 12:10:04
Saved through the water of the Red Sea as I said. It was a resurrection of sorts from sure death at Pharoah’s hand. What else could it mean? Your turn.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 19:21:28
The question really is what the phrase "baptized into" means and what "baptized" there means. So, can you tell us?

Saved through the water of the Red Sea as I said. It was a resurrection of sorts from sure death at Pharoah’s hand. What else could it mean? Your turn.

Apparently you have not really addressed the question. Please do. Thanks.
Title: Re: Romans 3:25
Post by: Jaime on Sun Aug 12, 2018 - 19:50:09
No thanks, I answered the question quite directly. Pretty much any commentary will tell you the same thing.