Author Topic: Romans 3:25 (Read 10697 times)

Wycliffes_Shillelagh · « **Reply #70 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.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #70 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 18:59:45 »

4WD · « **Reply #71 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 19:19:04 »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Wycliffes_Shillelagh · « **Reply #72 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.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #72 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 19:22:35 »

Reformer · « **Reply #73 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

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #73 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 23:42:31 »

Follow @GraceCentered Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Michael2012 · « **Reply #74 on:** Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 00:41:31 »

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 12:49:35

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.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #74 on:** Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 00:41:31 »

Michael2012 · « **Reply #75 on:** Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 00:44:13 »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #75 on:** Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 00:44:13 »

Michael2012 · « **Reply #76 on:** Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 01:17:11 »

Quote from: 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.

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.

RB · « **Reply #77 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

Jaime · « **Reply #78 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.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #78 on:** Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 07:14:01 »

Michael2012 · « **Reply #79 on:** Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 07:35:25 »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Jaime · « **Reply #80 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?

Michael2012 · « **Reply #81 on:** Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 07:54:49 »

Quote from: Jaime on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 07:44:17

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.

4WD · « **Reply #82 on:** Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 09:09:49 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 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.

soterion · « **Reply #83 on:** Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 09:19:01 »

Quote from: Jaime on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 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.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #84 on:** Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 10:36:56 »

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 09:09:49

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?

Michael2012 · « **Reply #85 on:** Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 10:56:30 »

Quote from: soterion on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 09:19:01

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?

Jaime · « **Reply #86 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.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #87 on:** Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:23:48 »

Quote from: 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.

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?

Kenneth Sublett · « **Reply #88 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.

soterion · « **Reply #89 on:** Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:55:27 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 10:56:30

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.

Jaime · « **Reply #90 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.

yogi bear · « **Reply #91 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.

e.r.m. · « **Reply #92 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.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #93 on:** Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 08:42:48 »

Quote from: 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.

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?

Michael2012 · « **Reply #94 on:** Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 08:47:25 »

Quote from: Kenneth Sublett on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:37:00

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?

Michael2012 · « **Reply #95 on:** Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 09:14:37 »

Quote from: soterion on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:55:27

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 from: soterion on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:55:27

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 from: soterion on Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:55:27

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?

Michael2012 · « **Reply #96 on:** Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 09:23:33 »

Quote from: 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.

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".

Jaime · « **Reply #97 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.

4WD · « **Reply #98 on:** Tue Jul 17, 2018 - 11:00:56 »

Quote from: 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.

Right ON Jaime ! ! !

Kenneth Sublett · « **Reply #99 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.

Elioenai · « **Reply #100 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:

Michael2012 · « **Reply #101 on:** Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 09:34:08 »

Quote from: 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.

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?

Michael2012 · « **Reply #102 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?

Jaime · « **Reply #103 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.

yogi bear · « **Reply #104 on:** Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 10:11:11 »

Quote from: 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?

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.

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: Romans 3:25 (Read 10697 times)

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board