I'm becoming quite the regular on Greg Koukl's Stand to Reason radio show! In yesterday's show (Sunday, 9/12; download in the podcast), starting at about 00:29:50, Greg took my call. In it, I asked him for help discussing baptismal regeneration, the view I've discussed in episodes 2 and 4 of my podcast, and here at my blog, which holds that salvation happens at water baptism.
Greg's initial response was one I use as well. The Gentile Godfearers in Acts 10 receive the Holy Spirit, and are saved, before being baptized in water. Therefore, it cannot be a prerequisite for salvation. I also pointed to the Apostles in Acts 2 who receive Him apart from water baptism. One response to this argument is that they were exceptions to the rule, to which I've responded by pointing out that there are only two or three other historical accounts in the New Testament where reception of the Holy Spirit is explicitly said to have taken place. To say that Acts 2 and Acts 10 are exceptions to a rule established by two or three other passages is, in my opinion, rather unconvincing.
Anyway, Greg went on to discuss how circumcision, the sign of the Old Covenant, typologically prefigures water baptism, the sign of the New Covenant. Paul goes to great length to decry the belief that circumcision affords salvation for sin, on the basis that it is a work. And I pointed out that Paul argues that Abraham was saved by his faith before receiving circumcision, and that his saving faith was exhibited in his acceptance of circumcision. For these reasons, Greg and I agree that water baptism is received from the position of faith unto the forgiveness of sins, rather than being the cause of it.
Please do give the show a listen, and let me know what you think of my conversation with Greg. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I gave the show a listen. It was very good. Not going to come to a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI just thought it interesting how he said to take the clear teaching of Acts 10 and then go "back" to Acts 2:38 and try to better understand it in light of the "later" passage.
Where the way I have sometimes come at it, is that John 3:5 is very clear, Mark 16:16 is very clear, and Acts 2:38 seems clear. Now how do I interpret Acts 10 in light of "previous" passages.
Your use of eis is still unconvincing to me.
And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (baptism of repentence in order to receive forgiveness of sins)
Jesus blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins
(again in order to receive)
Acts 2:38 be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
All 3 of those verses have very simular structures
however in Matt 12:41...for they repented at(eis) the preaching of Jonah. if you look close, the flow of that sentence is different and not really interchangeable with the other 3.
the first 3 look forward to, and the last one is looking back on.
Also, if you are going to insist in Acts 10 they were saved prior to baptism, then you have to insist in Acts 19:1 and 8:17 they got the HS after salvation. To say otherwise and say God chose to wait so it could be witnessed, you are making an exception to the rule the same way that I am.
So based on that it seems we are at a draw, and need to dig a little further.
Terry
Hey, Terry. If you don't mind, I'd like to take a break from this conversation to focus on one I think is a little more urgent. As I mentioned in my most recent blog post, a friend's sister, an atheist, has challenged me on the Christian world view. Although you and I disagree theologically concerning baptism and a number of other issues, I think we can both agree that this girl needs Jesus Christ, and I'd like to pour my time and effort into that exchange. Would you please keep her in your prayers?
ReplyDeleteabsolutely
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say the Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved before they were baptized? It doesn't say that. You are reading your views of salvation into the text.
ReplyDeleteDoes being miraculously empowered by the Holy Spirit prove you are saved? No, it does not. The Holy Spirit fell upon the wicked King Saul so that he prophesied, even while he was on his way to murder the Lord's anointed. Nor was the prophet Balaam saved, even though he spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
You will not be able to demonstrate that any sinner was saved in the New Covenant era apart from baptism, because there is no such text. On the other hand, there are a number of passages that explicitly teach forgiveness of sins is received at the point of baptism (Acts 2:38, 22:16, etc.).
The Bible never says baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, because baptism is not the sign of anything. The faulty idea that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant comes from a misunderstanding of what Paul teaches in Colossians 2.
In Colossians 2, Paul is addressing those who falsely claimed circumcision was essential for salvation. They claimed those who are circumcised are saved, and those who are not circumcised are lost.
Since the false teachers are the ones constantly bringing up circumcision, Paul picks up their argument from this point. Paul is essentially saying, "So you think circumcision is for salvation? You're right. Only it isn't the kind of circumcision you are thinking of. It isn't the circumcision done with hands, but the circumcision done without hands."
In circumcision, a piece of flesh is cut off and thrown away. In baptism, a piece of your flesh (your sins) is cut off by God and thrown away.
Colossians 2:8-15 does not teach that baptism is a sign. It DOES teach that baptism is the point at which one's sins are removed. Which is the same thing taught in Acts 2:38 and 22:16.
Hi, Steve. Thanks for visiting my blog. The Godfearers in Acts 10 were absolutely saved before water baptism. In episode 4 of my podcast, I demonstrate that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that which manifests in spiritual gifts such as tongues, and that said Holy Spirit seals us as children of God and is a promise of redemption and resurrection. There simply is no way around it. The same is true of the Apostles who were in that way sealed in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 without baptism in Christ's name.
ReplyDeleteEvery Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But only some Christians were miraculously empowered by the Holy Spirit. So the two are not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that King Saul and the prophet Balaam were miraculously empowered by the Holy Spirit, even as they were still lost, means you have not proven your point.
False. The Holy Spirit operated in the Old Covenant community differently than in the new. I proved this in episode 4, along with the fact that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the baptism in the Holy Spirit are one and the same in the New Covenant. You are wrong.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Steve, I checked out your blog and a few posts ago you stated a position that sounds very similar to mine concerning the so-called end times. Would I be correct in gathering that you, like me, are a preterist? (Note I distinguish between the preterism of history and the heresy of hyperpreterism that has attempted to co-opt the historic title in recent years.) Not that this has any bearing on our disagreement concerning baptism; I just love meeting fellow preterists :)
ReplyDeleteHey Chris, I went and listened to podcast #4, so perhaps this will address some of your points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, your position of salvation before water baptism rests on an argument from comparing different passages and traditions. This is because there is no passage that plainly teaches your position. In contrast, my position doesn't even need an argument, because the Bible simply says water baptism is for salvation on more than one occasion. I've seen all kinds of games played with Acts 2:38, for instance, but that is what the text says. At the very least, that ought to cause you to pause. Since your belief that the Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved before water baptism is based upon an involved argument, versus plain Scriptures, how can you claim your interpretation is "absolutely" true? Your conviction goes beyond your evidence.
You claim 1 Peter 3:21, the baptism that now saves you, is baptism of the Holy Spirit. The fact is, the context does not explicitly mention the Holy Spirit. However, the context DOES speak of literal water. Peter says this baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience." Before one is baptized in water, one must first believe, repent, and confess the Lord. So everyone who is baptized in water is baptized according to their faith in Christ. So the context argues for water baptism over baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Further, we have the additional context of Peter's teaching on water baptism from Acts 2:38, where he said we are to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Which is essentially the same thing as saying "baptism now saves you." So at the very least, the context favors that Peter is speaking of water baptism, and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Your argument says the baptism of the Holy Spirit is what saves you. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, as depicted in Acts, was not for salvation, but a sign. The tongues of fire in Acts 2 were a sign to the Jews. The baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 was a sign to Peter. Again, in Acts 8 and 19, the baptism of the Holy Spirit all involved demonstrable miracles. Miracles were signs, evidence for others.
ReplyDeleteMatthew 28:18-20 is obviously talking about water baptism. People are to be baptized "eis," literally INTO the Name of the Lord. What does it mean to be baptized into someone else's name? It means to be baptized into their power, into their possession. Being baptized in water is how you become God's possession. It is how you become God's man or woman. When you are baptized, you become His.
This is proven in 1 Corinthians 1:12-15. Paul says he can prove they don't belong to Paul, because they weren't (water) baptized into Paul's name. The direct implication is this, if you were baptized by water into the Name of the Lord, then you belong to Christ.
You say water baptism is important because Jesus commanded it. Why did Jesus command it? What is the purpose of water baptism, if it is not as Peter said, for the forgiveness of sin? Is it some empty act of obedience? Or is there an actual purpose to it? Where does the Bible explain the purpose of water baptism?
Getting back to your argument involving Joel 2 and Acts 2, notice that neither passage says the miraculous pouring out of the Holy Spirit is for salvation. In BOTH passages, salvation is explicitly connected to "calling upon the Name of the Lord." But how exactly does one call upon the Name of the Lord for salvation? According to Acts 2, when asked how to be saved, Peter says to repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins. That is how you call upon the Name of the Lord for salvation, through water baptism.
This is confirmed in Acts 22:16, where Paul is told to "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His Name." Is the Holy Spirit not able to fall upon someone who is on the floor? No, Paul had to get up in order to get to something like a bathtub or a swimming pool, to be baptized in water. Once again, you have the connection between water baptism with the removal of sins and calling on the Name of the Lord.
Yes, I am an (orthodox) preterist.
ReplyDeleteAs you may know, I've written a book on Revelation that also deals directly with hyperpreterism. I've developed some arguments against hyperpreterism that I haven't seen before, and have been "tested" against hyperpreterism, if you know what I mean. ;^)
So I think you might enjoy the book. It will be available as a free pdf or at cost print on demand. It is currently being edited, but I hope to have it out in the next month or two.
My areas of study over the years have been on Christian apologetics, baptism, the opening chapters of Genesis, and eschatology. So it sounds like we have a lot in common.
Paul very specifically says in 1 Corinthians 12 that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which manifests Himself in a variety of ways--including tongues and prophecy--is experienced by every member of the body of Christ. You are simply wrong about the Godfearers in Acts 10. The manifestation of the Holy Spirit proved that, having believed, they were part of the body of Christ.
ReplyDeleteNow, one option exercised by many who hold to baptismal regeneration is to view the Godfearers in Acts 10 and the Apostles in Acts 2 as exceptions to the rule. You're welcome to do so if you like, but to suggest that only two or three other passages where the order is reversed establishes a rule is pretty silly. What you cannot do, however, is eisegete your understanding of baptism into Acts 10 where the Godfearers were saved before being baptized.
As for some of the other comments you've made, I've rethought some of the things I said in episodes 2 and 4 and will be doing a follow-up episode in the future. I'm also hoping to have a guest on to discuss the topic. Either way, we'll have more to talk about then.
I'll look forward to your book on Revelation, and will definitely download it. I'll promote it in my podcast if I like what I read :)
Chris, the NT teaches that the gift of the Holy Spirit is received when you are baptized in water (John 3:5 & Acts 2:38). So when you cite a passage or refer to an early church father who talks about Christians having the Spirit, you can't just assume that they are referring to the baptism of the Spirit rather than water baptism.
ReplyDeleteSince both Peter and Jesus says the Holy Spirit is involved at water baptism, the question is, in what way do people recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit when they are baptized into water. Never in the NT do we see someone baptized into water coming out of the water performing miracles by the Holy Spirit.
The only time we see people receiving the Spirit's power to do miracles is in the passages that speak of the Spirit coming upon people, either spontaneously (Acts 2 & 10), or through the laying on of hands by the Apostles (Acts 8 & 19). In fact, none of these passages explicitly speak to the moment a person is saved, nor do they explicitly mention any non-miraculous spiritual gifts. All of which is perfectly consistent with my understanding.
Chris said, "Now, one option exercised by many who hold to baptismal regeneration is to view the Godfearers in Acts 10 and the Apostles in Acts 2 as exceptions to the rule. You're welcome to do so if you like, but to suggest that only two or three other passages where the order is reversed establishes a rule is pretty silly."
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, stop right there! You haven't proven Acts 2 or 10 are exceptions to the rule. You've made a lot of assertions, but you've been short on the evidence and responses to my critique (other than to say I am wrong).
YOU are the one trying to make a rule based upon two or three passages where you believe the order is reversed. You're trying to establish a rule from Acts 2 & 10 which supposedly presents things out of order. There are many, many, many passages that teach water baptism is for salvation. So far, I'm only getting started.
(to be continued...)
Chris said, "What you cannot do, however, is eisegete your understanding of baptism into Acts 10 where the Godfearers were saved before being baptized."
ReplyDeleteChris, you have it backwards. I am not reading anything into Acts 10. I don't even bring up the passage when discussing these things, because the text does not explicitly say at what point they were saved.
On the contrary, YOU are the one doing eisegesis with Acts 10. This is the primary passage in your argument. The proof that you are reading your interpretation into this passage is the fact that you can't make your argument from Acts 10. You have to go here and there in order to try to establish your interpretation of Acts 10. The fact that you cannot point to a single passage that explicitly teaches someone becomes a Christian prior to water baptism, and that your primary passage is silent on your major point, ought to make you rethink your position.
You argue that Acts 10 teaches they were saved prior to water baptism by referring to Acts 2 & Joel 2. Unfortunately for your interpretation, neither Acts 2 nor Joel 2 says salvation is attached upon receiving the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit. Instead, both passages teach salvation is received through "calling on the Name of the Lord." And as I have already explained, "calling on the Name of the Lord," in this context, refers to water baptism. Which is additionally confirmed in Acts 2:38.
What I am doing is exegesis. My primary passage is Acts 2:38, which explicitly says exactly what I believe. This is supported with a multitude of other passages that explicitly and implicitly confirm my understanding on the subject of baptism. There are far more passages that teach the connection between water baptism and salvation than most people realize.
In Acts 2:38, every major English translation I have ever read translates it one of two ways: baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, or baptism is so that your sins will be forgiven. Both ways mean the same thing. When the NIV originally came out, it translated it as so that your sins will be forgiven. It was quickly changed to the more ambiguous sounding FOR the forgiveness of sins. In English, "for" is somewhat ambiguous. Does "for" mean to look forward towards receiving forgiveness, or does it look backwards for having already received forgiveness (as many incorrectly teach)? The original Greek is unambiguous, it is looking towards receiving forgiveness. Thayer's, a standard NT Greek-English lexicon, says this about Acts 2:38: "to obtain the forgiveness of sins."
I used to reject the view that baptism was for salvation. Do you know what convinced me otherwise? One day, I was reading the book of Acts. I just happened to be reading Acts 2:38 (after having just recently gotten into an argument with my wife against water baptism for salvation).
I read Acts 2:38, and it didn't say what it was supposed to say. So I read it again. It still said the wrong thing. So I read it several more times. Then I thought to myself, just how important is it that your sins are forgiven? That is what persuaded me to my current beliefs. The Bible flat out says it.
I still do not like this doctrine. Which is why I have studied baptism with a passion over the years. I wish I could be proven wrong, but the more I study it, the more I learn, the more overwhelmingly true it is.
There are several doctrines that I still really do not like. But God is God, and I ain't. At the end of the day, it isn't about how I think it should be, but how He says it WILL be. He gives the orders, and my job is to salute.
You are right: the text of Acts 10 does not explicitly say when they are saved. However, it is very clear that you think they were not saved until they were baptized in water. It is correct that you don't argue from Acts 10 (although I think it's for a different reason than you give), but that doesn't mean you don't eisegete anything into the text. You most certainly do, and I admit I do as well. The question is, whose eisegesis is biblical?
ReplyDeleteI proved in episode 4 from 1 Corinthians 12 and other passages that the gift of tongues is only of many gifts, some obvious and miraculous, others more mundane and less obvious, that are manifestations of the saving indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Who seals us as children of God and Who serves as a promise of redemption and resurrection. Therefore, all I am eisegeting into Acts 10 is the clear meaning of 1 Corinthians 12 and some other passages. This is proper eisegeis: Scripture interpreting Scripture.
In fact, the way in which you first interacted in this thread proves my point. You said, "The Holy Spirit fell upon the wicked King Saul so that he prophesied, even while he was on his way to murder the Lord's anointed. Nor was the prophet Balaam saved, even though he spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit." This does no damage to my case, because I proved in episode 4 that the Holy Spirit's operation in the Old Covenant community was different than in the New. However, your very words actually do serious damage to your case, because if the baptism in the Holy Spirit experienced by the Godfearers in Acts 10 was no different from Saul and Balaam and other unsaved people, Peter would not have viewed that as proof they should be baptized in water. If the Godfearers were merely empowered by the Holy Spirit in a way similar to Saul and Balaam, that would in no way indicate to Peter that Gentiles were welcome into the New Covenant community. Your own words destroy your case.
Therefore, your eisegesis of baptismal regeneration into Acts 10 is a false and self-defeating one. You may, if you like, adjust your approach, recognizing the clear teaching of Acts 10, that the Godfearers were saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized in water, but view that as an exception to the rule. If you wish, we can debate the issue along those lines. However, I will not entertain a false understanding of Acts 10.
Now, as for not liking doctrine but conforming one's beliefs to Scripture, I wholeheartedly agree. There are many false doctrines I've believed in my short Christian walk, from which I've repented upon seeing the clear teaching of Scripture. As you say, my job is to salute. However, I unite in agreement with the authors of Scripture who would, like me, absolutely detest an understanding of salvation which views it as being received upon a work of obedience like baptism.
By the way, Terry, thanks for your prayers. I am making progress with her, I think.
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, I have a little more time to invest in this discussion, so feel free to re-engage.
Let's step back and just for the moment let's disregard acts 10-11.
ReplyDeleteActs 2:38 Peter preached the full Gospel message, correct?
Now every exact word he spoke is not in the text. But we do know what he did say. Call on Name of the Lord and be saved, Repent, be Baptized, receive the HS. And then all those that accepted his message were baptized and added to the Church.
So let's see if there is a pattern here. I propose that in every conversion you will see:
1) the gospel message
2) a baptism
3) an aknowlegdement that they are saved.
Peter's first sermon:
Message preached, people were baptized, added to the church
The Eunich:
He heard the message, he responded by being baptized, and went on his way rejoicing.
Lydia:
Heard Paul's message, got baptized, if you consider me a believer come stay at my house
Jailers' family:
Paul & Silas spoke the word of the lord, they immediately got baptized, was filled with joy cause he had come to believe
Acts 19:1
Told the people to believe in Jesus, on hearing this they were baptized in his Name, hands were placed & they spoke in tongues.......also note(In Acts 19, why would Paul ask the question "did you receive the HS when you believed" unless there was a possibility they could be believers and still not have it?)
Saul: Acts 22:16
Told God has chosen you to know His will & be a witness, he gets up and is baptized, the Lord speaks to him in a trance
The Samaritans:
But when they believed Phillip as he preached the good news, they were baptized both men and women, the Apostles heard Samaria had accepted the word of God
In every case baptism "immediately" followed the preached word. Why? Could it be that baptism is part of the Gospel.
Also notice the urgency:
Immediately after hearing the word, the Eunich exclaims "look here is water!" Why?
Paul is asked, "what are you waiting for, get up & be baptized" Why?
The jailer is immediately baptized in the middle of the night. Why?
Paul's first question to the disciples at Ephesus, "what baptism did you receive" Why?
3000 people baptized and added to the church THAT day. Why?
In all these accounts there is no such thing as an unbaptized Christian because baptism is part of the message.
If you could just for a moment believe that John 3:5 is saying be baptized and receive the renewel of the HS and that Acts 2:38 is saying, baptism FOR the remission of sins. 1 Peter 3:21 is saying baptism now saves you.
Now all of the verses throughout the NT concerning baptism flow beautifully together and there are no difficult verses that have to be "explained away".
It now makes sense they were baptized immediately because the message was "baptism for the forgiveness of sins".
They all fit perfectly with what the early church fathers say as well.
Every NT scripture that says believe in Jesus, every church father that says have faith in Jesus does not have to be expanded on to include repentance & baptism & the holy spirit & obedience cause they are all a part of the same Gospel message.
I don't know how it could be made any more clear.
Looking at it that way, aside from Acts 10 & 11, what verse needs further explanation or clarification? continued.....................
In one of your episodes you went through all these verses that just say believe so you erroneously conclude faith alone. Well, so what. During Peter's first sermon at Pentecost the phrase faith alone does not appear, so what about that. In the verses before, during and after(vs 1-9) Titus 3:5 the words faith & believe do not appear, so what. The verses surrounding 1 Peter 3:21 never mention faith, so what. Faith, belief, baptism, holy spirit, obedience, repentance are all part of the Gospel. Why try to separate any of them by prooftexting?
I will respectully submit that the apostles were clearly saved prior to Pentecost.
ReplyDeleteMark 3:14-15, Acts 1:17 & 1:22, John 17:12
Plus, they were given the Great commission to go out and preach, baptize and teach; They were breathed on and given authority to bind & loose sins; Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom directly from Jesus. If you notice, Jesus himself received the HS upon His being baptized. Did he receive it to save him or to empower Him for his ministry? Obviously not to save Him.
Likewise the Apostles recieved the HS to empower them for their minstry.
Acts 1:8 they are told they will recieve POWER when the HS comes UPON them and that they will be His "witnesses".
They were not told they would recieve it for salvation, or for forgiveness of sins but for power to be a witness.
As to Cornelius, the main point of the story is not how he got saved, the point is that of opening up the Gospel to the Gentiles. Hence the dream Peter had, (God had to repeat himself 3 times in the dream so he would get it!) The story is told twice, Chatper 10 & 11. If you step back and look at the context and how big a jump opening up the Gospel to those filthy uncircumcised Gentiles was to the Jewish Christians it is easy to understand why God chose to work in such a miraculous way. As Peter said, "who was I to argue with God".
ReplyDeleteSo why not let God be God, if He chose to give them the HS in that way, so what.
Back to my previous post, if Jesus received the HS for empowerment and for ministry, and the Apostles received it for power and ministry, and Peter saw the Gentiles received the HS the same way, maybe that shows there are special workings of the HS. And why would Peter "command" that they be baptized unless it was something neccessary? In what other account was someone commanded to be baptized?
Cornelius was to hear a message through which he would be saved.
ReplyDeleteHe said, "we are all here to listen to everything the Lord has "commanded" you to tell us"(there is that word command again)
Acts 11:4 "Peter tells them precisely as it happened" Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak the HS fell on them", well he had just begun to speak, they had not yet heard the whole message through which they would be saved.
At the end of his sermon, he "commands" them to be baptized. Telling them to be baptized is part of the message!
Thanks for returning to the discussion, Terry. My time today is limited, so you'll have to be patient with me :)
ReplyDeleteJesus received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, and the Apostles at Pentecost, at which point, as I proved in episode 4, the Holy Spirit began operating differently in the New Covenant community than He had in the Old. Your position denies the clear understanding and application of Joel's prophecy, and its consistency with 1 Corinthians 12 and other passages which make it undeniably clear that every Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Who manifests His presence through gifts (some obvious, like tongues, others not), and Who seals us as children of God and promises us redemption and resurrection.
(Continued...)
Now, I agree that the "main point" of Cornelius' story is not how he got saved--although the fact that they were saved before water baptism is absolutely clear from the text--and that the "main point" is the opening up of the New Covenant community to Gentiles. But this is not as unique as you seem to think. Such was the case with the Samaritans in Acts 8, too. It may not have been as overtly earth-shattering, but nevertheless, the opening up of the New Covenant community to Samaritans was also something God had to demonstrate was possible. The same is true in Acts 19 where these Ephesian Gentiles were not Godfearers as were those in Acts 10. God again demonstrated the opening up of the New Covenant community to a broader group of people: non-Godfearing Gentiles. If you doubt this distinction, look at the previous chapter, where in 18:6-7 Paul leaves the synagogue, saying he was going to the Gentiles, but to whom does he go? Titius Justus, a Godfearer.
ReplyDeleteSo, why did the Samaritans not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John arrived? Is it because one must undergo the authoritative laying on of hands to receive Him? No. It was because Peter and John needed to witness the opening up of the New Covenant community to Samaritans. Having received the Holy Spirit, they were saved, demonstrating the broadening of the New Covenant community. Why did Paul ask the Ephesian Gentiles if they had received the Holy Spirit upon believing? Because God had not yet demonstrated that non-Godfearing Gentiles were welcome into the community. Having received the Holy Spirit, they were saved, demonstrating the broadening of the New Covenant community.
In the same way, the Godfearers in Acts 10 received the Holy Spirit and were saved, demonstrating the broadening of the New Covenant community, but in their case, as was the case with the Apostles, this happened without water baptism (in the sense that it happened before water baptism). The point is that Acts 8 and Acts 19 do not in any way serve as evidence against my view, and do not in any way suggest that baptism and the laying on of hands was required for them to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 10, however, serves as evidence against your view, for it is absolutely certain that the Godfearers were saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit before water baptism.
(Continued...)
You are absolutely right that baptism is part of the gospel message. Proponents of baptismal regeneration often like to dishonestly mischaracterize my view, no matter how often we refute them. However, it is not true that Acts knows nothing of an unbaptized Christian. The Apostles in Acts 2 and the Godfearers in Acts 10 are proof to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteYou ask, "Why would Peter 'command' that [the Godfearers] be baptized unless it was something necessary?" This is, quite frankly, a silly question. The mere command to be baptized in no way suggests it is a prerequisite for salvation. The simple fact that they were saved before water baptism disproves that view. But the point is that we are commanded to do a number of things upon which salvation is not contingent. We disobey God's commands every day, but when we do so we do not lose our salvation, and then regain it, and then lose it, and then regain it, and then lose it, and then regain it. We are not born again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
We are commanded to be baptized, yes. And many disobey that command just as we disobey God's commands every day. Such in no way indicates that such failures to obey either stall our salvation, or cause us to lose it.
YOU SAID:
ReplyDeleteSo, why did the Samaritans not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John arrived? Is it because one must undergo the authoritative laying on of hands to receive Him? No. It was because Peter and John needed to witness the opening up of the New Covenant community to Samaritans.
First of all, where does it say they needed to be a witness.
Second of all, how is it possible for somenone to hear the word of the Lord, accept the word of the Lord, be baptized in the Name of the Lord and not be a part of the Christian community. Of all the comments you have made in all of our discussions, this seems to be the most unbelievable. In Acts 2, it says those that accepted the message were baptized and added to the Church that day. That is exactly what the Samaratins did. If baptism is the first step of obedience to identify with Christ, then you have totally contradicted yourself.
How can you not say this is a contradiction.
You have previously accused me of this alleged contradiction, and I already refuted that false claim. The question isn't whether or not the Samaritans were saved prior to receiving the Holy Spirit; I've already admitted they may have been. The question is whether one can have received the Holy Spirit and not be saved, and I've proven from 1 Corinthians 12 and other passages that this is not, in fact, possible. Therefore, one is forced to submit to the authoritative Word of God and recognize that the Godfearers in Acts 10 were saved before being baptized in water. I welcome a discussion on the impact this plain and simple fact has on the debate, but I will not entertain so blatant and incorrect an understanding of Acts 10 that views the Godfearers as unsaved before water baptism.
ReplyDeleteNow, as for the Samaritans, my point was not that they were not saved before receiving the Holy Spirit. I was answering the question: Why didn't they receive the Holy Spirit until they had hands laid on them? I know the passage doesn't explicitly say Peter and John needed to be witness, but it is an explanation consistent with the record in Acts 2, Acts 10 and Acts 19, and which is consistent with my view.
Chris, I have a lot to say, but I fear I would be wasting my time. So before I use up anymore of my time, I want to test your honesty and integrity.
ReplyDeleteChris said, "You are right: the text of Acts 10 does not explicitly say when they are saved."
So you finally admit your primary passage does not address your point. And yet you repeatedly insist that text is absolutely, undeniable proof of your position.
If Acts 10 absolutely, undeniably proves your point, then what about Acts 2:38? Unlike Acts 10, Acts 2:38 explicitly teaches exactly what I have been saying all along.
If Acts 10 proves your view, then if you have any honesty, you will have to admit Acts 2:38 proves my point even more so. Will you acknowledge Peter teaches water baptism is to obtain the forgiveness of sins, or not?
If someone came up to me and asked me, "What must I do to be saved?" I would give the exact same answer Peter gave in Acts 2:38.
Would you?
I empathize with the feeling that perhaps you are wasting your time. I often conversely feel that I'm wasting my time when discussing this issue.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to test my honesty and integrity, but what you need to recognize is that neither of us are being dishonest or disingenuous. We are both attempting to reconcile seemingly contradictory texts; the question is, whose reconciliation is consistent with Scripture.
Your attempt to reconcile your position with Acts 10 is not possible, for it's clear that the Godfearers were saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism. As I've said, however, one possible reconciliation is to acknowledge that fact, but view it as an exception to the rule. And we can debate the issue with that in mind if you like.
(Continued...)
As for how I reconcile my understanding with Acts 2:38, I think there are at least two alternate understandings that are perfectly legitimate. In this post I explain that one possible understanding of Acts 2:38 is that Peter was saying to be baptized on account of the forgiveness of sins. Those who hold to your view often object, but utterly without justification, since the Greek word in question, albeit used a majority of the time in the way you view it here, is used a few times in other ways. Therefore it is possible here.
ReplyDeleteAnother possibility, which I do not personally hold to and thus am not as able to articulate, is that it is the faith exercised in baptism that results in the washing away of sins. I'll invite my friend Michael to chime in on this thread to explain, since I think he understands this passage in this way. Also, I think I might have a prominent guest on soon to discuss this issue, and I'm sure Acts 2:38 will come up.
I find it amazing that folks still attempt to utilize John 3:5 to support baptismal regeneration. Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand that which He spoke of, and therefore "born of water" must be a referrent to something in the OT; namely, Ezekial 36:25-27. Furthermore, Christian baptism had not been instituted at the time of the dialogue between our Lord and the Pharisee.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Acts 2:38: the word "eis," meaning "for," can mean "because of" or "on behalf of." So too there is a grammatical dynamic wherein the word "repent" is in the plural and "baptized" is in the singular. This construction in conjunction with the plural "yours" suggest that the forgiveness of sins is by virtue of repentance and not baptism. So too, the majorative emphasis in the text of Scripture is on faith and repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and never baptism. In my perspective, baptism is that which symbolizes a genuine union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection to new life. Although theoretically regeneration could happen in baptism in some extraordinary occurence, it is clearly not the biblical prescription.
Steve Robertson: I must say that I am somewhat suprised by your answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" Was not the Apostle Paul given that very question by the jailer in Acts 16:29-31? What did Paul say the jailer must do to be saved? His concern wasn't baptism. No, Paul was concerned with faith. The Apostle did not feel that baptism was neccessary for salvation, and that is why he articulated his minsterial commission like he did:
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Also Steve, do you affirm the Trinity?
Ultimately, it is the Apostle's grand discourse on the doctrine of justification that prohibits baptismal regeneration in the most explicit of terms (Rom 3-5, particularly Rom 4:1-8). Because the Scriptures do make a distinction between baptism and faith, it follows that because "faith apart from works" is exclusively salvithic, baptism then is omitted as are all works.
Chris, I too see clear parallels between the legalism of the circumcision group and Paul's prohibition of the ordinance.
Michael said:
ReplyDeleteWas not the Apostle Paul given that very question by the jailer in Acts 16:29-31? What did Paul say the jailer must do to be saved?
If we are all honest with each other, we really do not know exactly what Paul said. For in verse 32 it says he "spoke the word of the Lord to him". The content of that phrase is not explicitly given, so you cannot conclude faith is Pauls only concern.
Can we all agree that Paul & Peter cannot contradict each other? They both obviously preached the same Gospel message, right?
When it says Paul spoke the word, he very well could have repeated Peters 1st sermon, "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the HS".
If Paul gave the same message as Peter, then doesn't it make sense the Jailer and his family were all baptized "immediately".
Think about it logically, why the urgency to be baptized at 1:00 am if Pauls only concern is that of having faith. He had just washed there wounds, it's late at night, why not everyone get a good nights rest and do the baptism tomorrow or the following day. It only makes sense he was baptized immediately if he was just told it was in order to have his sins forgiven.
Also Jesus, when asked the same question, what was his answer? He answered one time "obey the commandments", and another time "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." "Do this and you will live". It seems Jesus main concern was obedience.
Chris said,
ReplyDelete"As for how I reconcile my understanding with Acts 2:38, I think there are at least two alternate understandings that are perfectly legitimate. In this post I explain that one possible understanding of Acts 2:38 is that Peter was saying to be baptized on account of the forgiveness of sins. Those who hold to your view often object, but utterly without justification, since the Greek word in question, albeit used a majority of the time in the way you view it here, is used a few times in other ways. Therefore it is possible here."
At biblegateway.com, there are 21 English translations. All of them, ALL of them translate it as Peter teaching that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. In fact, some of them are even more explicit than that. Add to that 2 more translations I have handy, the RSV & NRSV, they both agree with me, too. Add to that my Greek/English Interlinear by Alfred Marshall, which agrees with me. Add to that Thayer's that says Acts 2:38 means baptism is to obtain the forgiveness of sins.
So that is 25 out of 25 translations that agree with me. That means 0 out of 25 agree with you. The interesting thing is, there are many major denominations that do not believe baptism is connected to salvation or the forgiveness of sins. So you can bet that at least some of those people on the various translation committees doctrinally agree with you. Even so, they all agree with me in translating this verse. Furthermore, I have never even heard of a NT Greek scholar that believes baptism is for salvation, and yet argues that Acts 2:38 does not teach baptism for salvation. Put all of that together, and I believe that speaks volumes.
Now if you want to insist that your translation is possible, I'll agree, it is possible. It is possible in the sense that it is possible for Baylor University's football team to win the national championship this year. It is a techinical possibility, but not a real possibility.
You are being dishonest with the text, but at least you are honest about not caring what the text says. On your linked post, you basically admit as much. You reject it outright not because there is a linguistic difficulty with the passage, nor an incongruence in the context. No, you reject Acts 2:38 simply because it doesn't match your beliefs.
Neither one of us likes the doctrine that baptism is for salvation. The difference between us is that I went to Acts 2:38 and did exegesis, and you did eisegesis. I conform my beliefs to the Bible. You conform the Bible to your beliefs.
You think Matt. 3:11 enables you to explain away Acts 2:38. The problem is, you do not correctly understand Matt. 3:11. And it is no surprise you misunderstand it, since your concern wasn't what it meant, but something that would help you explain away Acts 2:38. When correctly understood, Matt. 3:11 does not help you at all. When you compare Matt. 3:11 with its parallel verses in Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3, I think your "translation" can safely be laid to rest.
You would treat the Scriptures as if it were a game. Do you think God is amused when you "tweak" a Scripture just because you do not like it, and then teach others to do likewise?
Michael said,
ReplyDelete"I find it amazing that folks still attempt to utilize John 3:5 to support baptismal regeneration. Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand that which He spoke of, and therefore "born of water" must be a referrent to something in the OT; namely, Ezekial 36:25-27. Furthermore, Christian baptism had not been instituted at the time of the dialogue between our Lord and the Pharisee."
That objection doesn't carry any water. The Gospels make it clear that Jesus often taught people in ways they could not understand Him, at least not until a later time. As but one example, Jesus deliberately teaches a lesson in John 6:41-71 in such a way that no one could have understood what He really meant. As far as we can tell, Jesus never even explained it to His Apostles until the Last Supper.
Michael said,
"Regarding Acts 2:38: the word "eis," meaning "for," can mean "because of" or "on behalf of." So too there is a grammatical dynamic wherein the word "repent" is in the plural and "baptized" is in the singular. This construction in conjunction with the plural "yours" suggest that the forgiveness of sins is by virtue of repentance and not baptism."
I give you an A for creativity, but an F for reading comprehension. 25 out of 25 translations agree with me. 0 of 25 agree with you. Then when you compare Acts 2:38 with Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3, and Acts 22:16, we can safely rule out your attempt to subvert the plain wording of Acts 2:38.
Michael said,
"So too, the majorative emphasis in the text of Scripture is on faith and repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and never baptism."
Except for Acts 22:16, for example, which mentions baptism, but says nothing about faith or repentance. There are more, but I think this makes my point.
Michael said,
"In my perspective, baptism is that which symbolizes a genuine union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection to new life."
At least you correctly label it as your own perspective, which is quite different from Peter, Paul, & Luke's perspectives. Paul teaches that baptism is when you die, buried & raised up with Christ (Romans 6).
Michael said,
"Steve Robertson: I must say that I am somewhat suprised by your answer to the question 'what must I do to be saved?' Was not the Apostle Paul given that very question by the jailer in Acts 16:29-31?"
Yes, just as Peter was asked that in Acts 2:37. Which reminds me, Chris never answered my very simple question, "Would you answer the same way as Peter?" Of course Chris was silent, because he most definitely would NOT answer it the same way as Peter. In fact, if Chris had been there on Pentecost, I wouldn't be surprised if he would've rebuked Peter for preaching a salvation of works!
Michael said,
ReplyDelete"What did Paul say the jailer must do to be saved? His concern wasn't baptism. No, Paul was concerned with faith."
The text says Paul "spoke the word of the Lord to him," and they were immediately baptized. So obviously faith in Christ includes baptism.
The same can be seen in Acts 8:35-38. It says Philip "preached Jesus" to the eunuch. See, he didn't talk to the eunuch about faith, or repentance, or baptism or... wait a minute. What was the eunuch's response to hearing Philip "preach Jesus?" "What prevents me from being baptized?" So if you preach Jesus the way Philip did, then you will preach baptism.
Michael said,
"The Apostle did not feel that baptism was neccessary for salvation, and that is why he articulated his minsterial commission like he did:
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."
Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 2:2 that Paul only preached "Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." That is, Paul proclaimed the Gospel - the death, burial, and the resurrection of Jesus. Obviously, Paul preached for people to obey the Gospel. But how do you obey the death, burial, & resurrection? By dying with Jesus, being buried with Jesus, and being raised up with Jesus, which Paul says happens through baptism (Romans 6).
Michael said,
"Also Steve, do you affirm the Trinity?"
I'm not sure what YOU mean by Trinity, but I agree with the traditional understanding of the Trinity.
Michael said,
"Ultimately, it is the Apostle's grand discourse on the doctrine of justification that prohibits baptismal regeneration in the most explicit of terms (Rom 3-5, particularly Rom 4:1-8). Because the Scriptures do make a distinction between baptism and faith, it follows that because "faith apart from works" is exclusively salvithic, baptism then is omitted as are all works."
And this is the true problem underlying your inability to accept the plain teachings of Scripture. Neither you nor Chris correctly understand faith or works.
According to Jesus, faith in Christ, merely believing in Jesus is a work we are to do (John 6:27-29). Choosing to believe something is something you do, which makes it a work.
So clearly you misunderstand faith. But the works that Paul is speaking of in Romans 3-5 & Eph. 2:8-9 isn't just any works (since that would have to include faith), but a specific kind of work. Specifically, by works, Paul is referring to the works of the Law of Moses, circumcision in particular.
This is why Rom. 4:1-15 speaks of Abraham, because it was to him the commandment of circumcision was first given. So Paul proves that Abraham was saved apart from circumcision. This is also Paul's point in Eph. 2:8-9. The works he is referring to are the works of the Law of Moses, especially circumcision. This is why Paul immediately starts talking about those who trust in the circumcision done with hands in Eph. 2:11.
Now if you would like to see an indepth study of baptism, based upon exegesis instead of eisegesis, see my blog where I am beginning a series on the subject of baptism:
http://beholdallthingsnew.blogspot.com/
Despite your baseless rhetoric against me, you are wrong on all counts. First, I don't deny that the translations render Acts 2:38 as "for the forgiveness of sins." But you clearly didn't read my post, because I explain how that English word "for" is used today in exactly the way I'm claiming eis is in the original Greek. So your first point is utterly irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteSecond, your claim I am being dishonest with the text is false, and utterly devoid of any foundation. Likewise is the false witness you've borne against me in saying I have said I don't care about what the text says. We are both attempting to reconcile certain verses with other ones. That is not dishonesty; that is how we all approach Scripture.
Third, your claim that you are not eisegeting and that you conform your beliefs to the Bible is false. It has been demonstrated that the understanding you eisegete into Acts 10 is false, irreconcilable with the clear teaching of the meaning of the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is evident that you are the one "tweaking" Scripture.
Fourth, your claim that Mark and Luke contradict my interpretation of Matthew 3:11 is false. For one, Mark and Luke say John "proclaimed" a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. They don't see he himself performed such a baptism. And in both contexts, what is John pointing to? The coming Messiah, whose baptism unlike his own would not be with water but with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Therefore, I see no evidence that the baptism which John "proclaimed" was his own baptism.
But even if Mark and Luke are saying John was proclaiming his own baptism "of" repentance "for" forgiveness of sins, the fact of the matter is that in Matthew, John says he baptized "for" repentance, yet it was repentance which prompted their desire to be baptized. Furthermore, you have completely avoided the other passage in which the Ninevites repent "for" the preaching of Jonah. In both cases, the meaning of eis is clear, and establish the plausibility of the reading Michael and I have offered of Acts 2:38.
You are incorrect on each and every count, and you still deny the Truth of the Word of God which teaches that the Godfearers in Acts 10 were saved before water baptism.
As for your false claim that Michael's objection to John 3:5 doesn't carry any water, we all agree that Jesus often taught people in ways they could not understand until later. However, this failed attempt to refute Michael's objection neglects the verses which follow:
ReplyDelete"9 Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can these things be?'
10 Jesus answered and said to him, 'Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?'
You see, Jesus' rebuke of Nicodemus was that he should have been able to understand Jesus' point, indeed that he should have been able to teach it! Show me where in the Tanakh Nicodemus would have been able to teach the Jews that water baptism in the name of the Messiah was necessary to be born again. This disproves your false claim based on John 3:5.
As for your statement,
ReplyDelete"Which reminds me, Chris never answered my very simple question, 'Would you answer the same way as Peter?' Of course Chris was silent, because he most definitely would NOT answer it the same way as Peter. In fact, if Chris had been there on Pentecost, I wouldn't be surprised if he would've rebuked Peter for preaching a salvation of works!"
I simply missed that question. You are quick to judge and slow to understand.
You have borne false witness against Scripture because no, Peter was NOT asked in Acts 2:37 "What must we do to be saved." The Jews merely asked, "What shall we do?" Yet again you have eisegeted your own presuppositions into the text.
I'll answer the question you would have asked had you intended to correctly represent the text of Acts 2:37, which would have been: "If in response to your preaching your unbelieving listeners are pierced to the heart and express faith in Jesus Christ, and they ask you, 'What shall we do?' What would you tell them?" Since God has opened their heart to receive my message, then yes, the next step would be to be baptized in water.
Chris, Greg actually said in his response to you on the show that the way you are going about answering the question of what a 'work' is, is ineffective. Which is very clearly (because the Bible IS CLEAR)that one must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Even those who have absolutely no prior religious background (and therefore no preconceived notions)can understand that baptism IS necessary AND commanded. Take the Ethiopian Eunuch, or all the other accounts of baptisms throughout Acts. Those people understood it to be water baptism as Luke would have understood it (being a Physician and being with Paul and seeing it) and wrote it down as he SAW it. And now I exit the conversation.
ReplyDeleteActually, Aaron, that's not quite correct. We proved your view incorrect using Acts 2 and Acts 10, but what Greg was saying is that using the particular approach of defining baptism as a work is less effective than proving you wrong using Acts 2 and Acts 10. And the reason is because your view either presupposes that baptism is not a work, or in the case of people like Bruce Reeves, it presupposes that works of obedience are required for salvation.
ReplyDeleteStill, we pointed to the relationship between circumcision and baptism, and how just as Paul condemned an attempt to rely upon circumcision for salvation, so, too, would he have condemned reliance upon baptism.
I believe I made a very good argument that the Apostles were saved before Pentecost in an earlier post. The following adds further to that idea:
ReplyDelete"The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, 'Let there be light;' and there was light." At the very beginning of Genesis, you have God’s Word, (Jesus); you have God the Father; and you have the HS: the Trinity all represented in creation.
The Hebrew word behind spirit is ruach, and it means "air in motion." It is the same word for "breath." It also means "life." By resemblance to breath and air in motion, it means "spirit." That’s where we get the translation, and the Hebrew word contains all those different meanings.
"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit"
Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit, and He’s saying it is like wind. When you get into the Greek behind that, the Greek word is pneuma, which again means "a current of air," "breath," or a "breeze, " and again by analogy, "a spirit." So both the Hebrew and the Greek word are talking about breath. It’s talking about wind.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"
The same thing happens when we are born of the Spirit. When we are re-born, it is from the breath of God. In the Gospel of John, where He is giving to His disciples the Holy Spirit, just as God breathed on Adam and gave him the breath of life, Jesus breathed on His disciples in John chapter 20: "'Peace to you! As the Father sent me, I also send you.' And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'" (John 20:21-22, NKJV).
Now in Acts chapter 4 the Apostles get baptized in the Holy Spirit again. It says very clearly in Acts chapter 4 they were all filled with the Holy Spirit as they were in a prayer meeting: "After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God boldly." So it is not just in John 20, not just in Acts chapter 2; it is also in Acts chapter 4. Now, I hope you are not going to argue that the Apostles were saved 3 times.
As far as them ever being baptized in water, we really don't know, the Bible never explicitly says. However, it does't really matter, as they were all "chosen" by Jesus to be witnesses of His resurrection and perform His ministry on earth. They had the priviledge of being personlly breathed on by the Lord himself, something we cannot do.
Chris said,
ReplyDelete"First, I don't deny that the translations render Acts 2:38 as "for the forgiveness of sins." But you clearly didn't read my post, because I explain how that English word "for" is used today in exactly the way I'm claiming eis is in the original Greek."
The point is, not all of these translations say baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Some of them are even more explicit, such as the NRSV: "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven."
According to Thayer's, THE standard NT Greek-English Lexicon, baptizo with the preposition eis means "to mark the element into which the immersion is made. Specifically, in Acts 2:38, Thayer's says "to obtain the forgiveness of sins."
So when a translation translates it as "for the forgiveness of sins," it is incorrect to claim it can mean "for" as in "because of." In fact, given the severe prejudice against baptism for salvation that so many people have today, if your conjecture had legitimacy, we would expect at least some of the major translations to explicity teach that. But none of them do. Because they are more honest than you are.
Chris said,
"We are both attempting to reconcile certain verses with other ones. That is not dishonesty; that is how we all approach Scripture."
Not so. Unlike you, I do not have any "pea under the mattress" verses. All of the verses in the Bible are either consistent with, or directly prove my understanding of baptism. That is why I have no dread of passages such as Eph. 2:8-9 or Rom. 10:9-10 (which are erroneously, commonly thought to pose a problem for baptism for salvation).
Chris said,
"It has been demonstrated that the understanding you eisegete into Acts 10 is false, irreconcilable with the clear teaching of the meaning of the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit."
I've stopped trying to argue Acts 10 because you have already declared it is impossible for it to mean anything other than what you eisegete into it. You can't even admit the possibility your view is wrong, as it is "absolutely" true. You can't use reason against a "true-believer."
To repeat what you have failed to answer, your eisegesis into Acts 10 is in part based upon Acts 2, quoting Joel 2. Yes, both of those passages speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit AND salvation. Unfortunately for your interpretation, those passages do not teach that salvation is connected with baptism of the Holy Spirit, but to something else - calling on the Name of the Lord. And as Acts 2 & 22:16 makes clear, the way you call on the Name of the Lord is to be baptized in the Name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins - NOT baptism of the Holy Spirit. And given that we KNOW Peter taught baptism was for the forgiveness of sins and salvation, that says something about why Peter would have baptized the Gentiles after they were baptized by the Holy Spirit.
At the very least, anyone with a hint of objectivity would have to admit this casts some doubt on your interpretation of Acts 10. But not you. All that Scripture and common sense is completely irrelevant because you are "absolutely" correct.
(to be continued)
Chris said,
ReplyDelete"But even if Mark and Luke are saying John was proclaiming his own baptism 'of' repentance 'for' forgiveness of sins, the fact of the matter is that in Matthew, John says he baptized 'for' repentance, yet it was repentance which prompted their desire to be baptized."
John's baptism for (eis) repentance is looking towards future repentance, not looking back at previous repentance. This is obvious when Matt. 3:11 is read in context, rather than read to explain away Acts 2:38. John told the people coming to be baptized to "bear fruit in keeping with repentance." So in John's baptism, they were committing to continuously live a life of repentance - to continue to follow God and not to return to their old ways. But don't just take my word for it, read what Thayer's has to say about Matt. 3:11. "of John's baptism, that purificatory rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to a spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom soon to be set up." So John's baptism was to bind them to a changed life, to ongoing repentance.
Furthermore, you bogus understanding of "for the forgiveness of sins" as looking back on forgiveness already gained is clearly refuted with Acts 22:16. It says to be baptized and wash away your sins. That fits perfectly with the plain reading of Acts 2:38 and the overwhelming scholarly consensus. But it cannot fit your interpretation. It teaches sins are washed away in baptism, NOT that you are to be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven.
So put that pea back under your mattress.
Chris said,
"Furthermore, you have completely avoided the other passage in which the Ninevites repent 'for' the preaching of Jonah."
I ignored it because it is irrelevant. I have never disputed that eis can mean different things depending upon the context. What you appear oblivous/impervious to is the fact that scholarship is very clear on what eis means in this particular context.
Chris said,
"You are incorrect on each and every count, and you still deny the Truth of the Word of God which teaches that the Godfearers in Acts 10 were saved before water baptism."
Actually, since you admitted Acts 10 doesn't prove that without your eisegesis, I am not rejecting Scripture, just your mishandling of Scripture.
Chris said,
ReplyDelete"You see, Jesus' rebuke of Nicodemus was that he should have been able to understand Jesus' point, indeed that he should have been able to teach it! Show me where in the Tanakh Nicodemus would have been able to teach the Jews that water baptism in the name of the Messiah was necessary to be born again. This disproves your false claim based on John 3:5."
Jesus' main point in that passage isn't to teach the specifics of water baptism, but that salvation is based upon the Spirit and not the flesh. It isn't those who are born according to the flesh that are sons of Abraham, but those who are born according to God's promise (see Gal. 4:21-31). It is not about circumcision of the flesh, but of the heart, since Genesis teaches Abraham was saved prior to being circumcised in the flesh (see Rom. 4:9-25).
So to understand Jesus' point, all he would have needed was the book of Genesis. So Michael & your objection fails.
Chris said,
"I'll answer the question you would have asked had you intended to correctly represent the text of Acts 2:37, which would have been: 'If in response to your preaching your unbelieving listeners are pierced to the heart and express faith in Jesus Christ, and they ask you, "What shall we do?" What would you tell them?' Since God has opened their heart to receive my message, then yes, the next step would be to be baptized in water."
Technically, what they asked was, "Brethren, what shall we do?" What exactly does that mean? In context, Peter had just told them they had just humiliated, tortured, and killed God's Chosen One, and they were about to be turned into His footstool. Now when they heard THIS, they were pierced to the heart. Now what do you THINK the crowd was thinking at this point? "Yay, I'm saved!" or "Oh NO, I'm DOOMED!' Of course they realized they were doomed, which is why they asked what they must do to be saved.
If Peter believed they were already saved, then why did he tell them to repent? Repentance preceeds salvation. Let me quote from one of your favorite passages: "the repentance that leads to (eis) life." First repentance, then life
Chris said,
ReplyDelete"And the reason is because your view either presupposes that baptism is not a work, or in the case of people like Bruce Reeves, it presupposes that works of obedience are required for salvation."
Baptism, like faith, is a work. But it is not a work of merit. The truth is, faith is not complete without obedience. Faith itself is an act of obedience (you choose to believe).
Chris said,
"Still, we pointed to the relationship between circumcision and baptism, and how just as Paul condemned an attempt to rely upon circumcision for salvation, so, too, would he have condemned reliance upon baptism."
I guess you forgot about my earlier post on Colossians 2 where I explained all this? Paul contrasts the false teachers (those who believe they are saved because of circucmision done with human hands - Eph. 2:11) vs. the Christian teaching on salvation (you know you don't need circumcision for salvation, because you were saved when you were circumcised without hands). And what is the circumcision made without hands that proves you are saved? Baptism.
I will respond to your false claims once you acknowledge the fact that you are wrong about Acts 10. 1 Corinthians 12:4-14, John 7:37-39, Romans 8:9-11,15-17, 2 Corinthians 5:4-5, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and Ephesians 1:13-14 together make it undeniable that the Godfearers in Acts 10 received the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There simply is no alternate explanation; you are very plainly bearing false witness against the Word of God in this passage. When you acknowledge that, we can talk about these other points.
ReplyDeleteTerry, I demonstrated before using the parallel passage that John does not depict Jesus giving them the Holy Spirit. It simply doesn't say that. It's not until Pentecost that the Holy Spirit operates in the New Testament way, which according to the passages in my comment immediately preceding this one is the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit all Christians experience, Who seals us as children of God and Who promises us redemption and resurrection. There simply is no way around the fact that this is what happened to the Godfearers in Acts 10 before being water baptized.
ReplyDeleteAs for Acts 4, I don't think the text you're referring to says what you think it says. Notice in verse 4 that Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit, and because of that boldly proclaims the gospel. Now, that could be understood to mean that it was at that point that he was filled, but it could also mean he was already filled. Indeed, we know he was already filled at Pentecost. So, in verse 31, it seems to me that "they were filled" does not mean that they were at that point filled, but that having been filled previously at Pentecost, they proclaimed the Word of God.
Steve, I wholeheartedly stand behind my position and my assessment of yours, but I sincerely want to apologize to you for falling into the trap of speaking overly harsh of you personally, not sharing the hope I have within me with the kind of gentleness and respect I'm commanded to. Would you please forgive me?
ReplyDeleteNo Chris, I won't forgive you for there's nothing to forgive. Iron sharpens iron. John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, & the Apostle Paul even called people names at times!
ReplyDeleteI have been intentionally harsh & provocative with you in an attempt to shake you up. I believe that you and many others are sincerely wrong.
This topic is a matter of salvation and has the most serious of implications.
I appreciate your understanding, and agree with the seriousness of this discussion. Still, I will be seeking the Lord's help to communicate in a more gentle and respectful way. So there!
ReplyDeleteThe Apostles were:
ReplyDelete1) chosen to be with Him
2) sent out to preach
3) given authority to drive out demons
4) shared the eucharist with Christ
5) He protected them & kept them safe
6) He breathed on them & said receive the spirit
7) They were given authority to forgive sins(how can you forgive sins unless yours are forgiven)
8) They were given the keys to the Kingdom
9) Luke 10:20 - Jesus tells them their names are written in heaven(how much more saved can you get than having your name written in heaven?)
They are never told the HS will save them or wash away their sins; they are only told they will receive power and that they will be a witness when it comes upon them.
They are clearly and demonstrably saved before Pentecost!
I have been thinking alot about Acts 10 & 11. I'm beginning to entertain the idea you may be correct.
ReplyDeleteIt really makes no difference exactly when Cornelius was saved. The point of the story is that God needed to convince the Jews that He was opening up the Gospel to the Gentiles. So I guess if God chose to save them by giving them the HS I am OK with that. Why argue the exact split second they were saved?
Cornelius' baptism followed so close to his conversion, that they were almost the same event anyhow. (Plus the fact that he was commanded to be baptized to "seal the deal"
so to speak. Plus the fact this is the only conversion story where someone is saved in the middle of a Gospel message, not after. And the fact he asked if anyone can forbid them receiving water - what an unusual question.)
If someone wants to believe he was saved at the precise moment of the HS falling on him, that's OK. If someone chooses to believe he was saved at the precise moment of baptism, that's OK too. What difference does a few seconds make! It was such a miraculous event which has never been repeated, maybe we shouldn't make such a big deal out of it.
Today, no one gets zapped by the HS and begins speaking in tongues. Today, no one has hands placed on them and begins to prophesy.
So if God chose to work in this way, as Peter said, "who am I to argue with God".
Can we now leave the story of Cornelius out of further discussions?
Steve stated, " That objection doesn't carry any water. The Gospels make it clear that Jesus often taught people in ways they could not understand Him, at least not until a later time. As but one example, Jesus deliberately teaches a lesson in John 6:41-71 in such a way that no one could have understood what He really meant. As far as we can tell, Jesus never even explained it to His Apostles until the Last Supper."
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I'd like to thank Chris for picking up my slack as I was out of town and unable to immediately respond. That said, I think it is pretty obvious that although Jesus did at times teach using parables, apocalyptic hyperbole and such, the sentiment that Jesus **expected** Nicodemus to understand that which He was speaking about. The statement "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" makes this patently evident. Therefore, "born of water and the Spirit" must have an OT correlative; and it does as I stated before. You cannot simply omit the fact that Jesus was speaking to a teacher of the Law who would have known well such a prominent text as Ez 36:25-28. So too you cannot omit the fact that Christian baptism had not yet been instituted as of John 3. Should I concede your point that the phrase "born of water" is baptism (which I don't), that statement would have been completely meaningless to this 2nd temple Jewish teacher. What you are suggesting is that Jesus is utilizing language that could not possibly be understood not only by Nicodemus, but anyone on the earth prior to the delivery of Christian baptism. Such a notion is not only ridiculous, and textually unfounded, it is completely unneccessary given the fact that the way in which sinners are justified by God has NEVER changed throughout the history of redemption. This is why Paul uses Abraham as his example for justification in Acts 4.
Steve stated " I give you an A for creativity, but an F for reading comprehension. 25 out of 25 translations agree with me. 0 of 25 agree with you. Then when you compare Acts 2:38 with Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3, and Acts 22:16, we can safely rule out your attempt to subvert the plain wording of Acts 2:38."
I see. So you have responded with two grammatical arguments with a logical fallacy? What you have proposed is that because English translations render the text the way that they render it they are somehow in agreement with you. Translators are neither in agreement with you or me, as their interest is being faithful to the best English rendering of the best MSS. Furthermore, I gave you two possible definitions of the word "for" and a grammatical basis for my interpretation. To this argument you made no response. The baptism of John the baptist is not Christian baptism, and it is never said to be a requirement for salvation. What you have done is made a fallacious equivocation between a Jewish ritual cleansing and the ordinance personally instituted by the Lord Jesus post atonement. That said, when we look at Mark 1:4 we see indeed a usage of eis very similar to it's usage in Acts 2:38. But let me ask you, was John's baptism salvithic? If it was, then the work of Jesus Christ was unneccessary. Or was it in fact the repentance of sin and faith in the one proclaimed by the baptizer(Luke 3:16)that had a salvithic effect on the participant? The answer is obvious.
Steve stated "Except for Acts 22:16, for example, which mentions baptism, but says nothing about faith or repentance. There are more, but I think this makes my point."
ReplyDeleteActs 22:16 does not teach, nor suggest that baptism is that which washes away sins. The words "arise" and "call" are participles, and "baptize" and "wash" are imperatives. The Apostle thereby creates two complemtary sets that can only be understood as "arise and be baptized" and "wash away your sins, calling on His name." Therefore this text does not attribute the washing away of sins to baptism, but the washing away of sins as effected by calling on the name of the Lord. There are also quite a few texts that support my position too:
Lamentations 3:55-57 I called on your name, O Lord, from the depths of the pit; you heard my plea, ‘Do not close your ear to my cry for help!’ You came near when I called on you;
you said, ‘Do not fear!’
Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved
Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Terry, please understand I have not argued (or at least intended to argue) that the Apostles were not saved before Pentecost. Remember, I said with regard to the Samaritans that the issue was not whether or not they were saved before receiving the Holy Spirit. Like the Apostles, I think they were. But they hadn't received the New Covenant gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. The question is whether or not the Godfearers in Acts 10 were saved, having received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, before they were baptized in water.
ReplyDeleteI'm overjoyed that you are having a change of mind regarding Cornelius. I do want to correct your statement that, "If someone chooses to believe he was saved at the precise moment of baptism, that's OK too." That's incorrect. I've demonstrated, and I'm thrilled you're beginning to see, that they were saved before water baptism. Also, you said "he was commanded to be baptized to 'seal the deal'," but that's also incorrect. In the passages I cited, the Holy Spirit is Himself the seal of the deal.
But having given those corrections, let me just reiterate that I commend you for your change of mind. I certainly hope I am as humble as you are and will conform my understanding to the Word of God when it's been shown that I'm wrong. Please pray for me in that regard. Unfortunately I can't discuss this at length right now at work, so I'll respond to your other points later tonight as we discuss the implications of what you've come to understand.
Michaels last comment on Acts 22:16 doesn't prove much.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if I said "sit down and eat your meal and strengthen your body, digesting your food".
Now obviously (sitting down - to eat) goes together & (digesting food - strengthens your body) goes together. But obviously a normal person reading that would never separate the idea of eating from strengthening your body.
Same with baptism; if by Grace through Faith you call on the Name of the Lord in the act of Baptism looking forward to His promise of forgiveness of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit, that is just as easy to understand. Perhaps you don't agree with that, but you must admit it is at least plausble, in the context of this one particular verse.
The phrase "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" is a true statement, however it is not a complete definition of how to join the body of Christ or to enter heaven.
Likewise, Jesus said - "he who endures to the end will be saved", is a true statement, however it is not neccessarily a complete definition of how to be saved.
One can easlily say, "not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will be saved, but only those that do the will of my Father". Well that is true as well, and further clarifies calling on the name of the Lord. But, you can't use that one verse to prove a broader point, neccessarily.
I agree completely with Michael that Nicodemus would have been familiar with Ezekiel 36.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Christian baptism was not instituted yet is of little importance; having faith in the death, burial and ressurrection of Jesus and receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit on account of His shed blood was not instituted yet either.
As a Jew familiar with the OT he certainly also would have been familiar with the numerous cleansing and purification rituals required for childbirth, menstral flow, nocturnal emissions, touching dead bodies, etc. A person was declared unclean but they were "made clean" if they followed the washings and sacrifices, etc. So he was well aware of the effects of cleansing by water. The Holy Spirit is mentioned often in the OT which he would have been well aware of and obviously the Spirit works internally.
So he should have been familiar with both water and spirit.
Jesus was surprised he didn't understand, yet he still didn't get it, did he?
We don't know what became of Nicodemus, but supposing he did become a Christian,
most likely being a good Jew, he probably would have been one of those trying to require the Gentile Christians to be circumcised cause he still didn't get it!
Let's look at Ezek 36 for a moment:
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
Verse 25, water can only be applied to the outside of your body, you cannot sprinkle water on someones heart or inside them. The Spirit is something that can be applied internally or on someones heart. If you take all 3 verses with only the HS in mind it doesn't make sense.
He would be saying, "I will sprinkle the HS on the outside of you and cleanse you. And then I will also put the HS inside of you as well. That is overly redundant. He is actually talking about 2 separate things, 1) applying water and cleansing(water baptism & forgiveness of sins) and 2) giving you a new heart(renewel of the spirit) and this will cause him to walk in His statutes(live by the spirit)
Now I am sure Chris wants to jump in here and say in the OT the HS is likened unto water. But that doesn't work in this text. Then you would have the HS likened unto water, and the HS likened unto the HS, and the HS likened unto a new heart. Again that is redundant. Also, rivers of living water flowing from inside is internal(so I agree the HS) but sprinkling clean water on you is external (hence water baptism)
Just like Moses being baptized in the red sea, the Israelites went through the sea, it was outside of them, and noah was saved through the water, it was on the outside of him. Those are OT examples of water likened unto NT baptism.
At any rate, based on what I have just proven logically, Ezek 36 now parallels perfectly with:
John 3:5
1) water &
2) spirit
Titus 3:5
1) laver of regeneration - laver or loutron literally means bath
2) renewal of the holy spirit
Eph 5:26
cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
1)washing with water(baptism)
2)the word(spirit, Heb 4:12)
Heb 10:22
2)having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience(spirit)
1)having our bodies washed with pure water(baptism)
In this case the holy spirit can "sprinkle" your heart because that is internal or spiritual,
washing your body I should hope is extremely obvious
In every verse you have water and spirit.
Just using these verses alone, where is the argument?
Tbolson76,
ReplyDeleteWho is it that does the sprinkling of water in the Ezekial passage? Who is the one acting in that text? Is sprinkling the method you claim to be used in Christian baptism? Also, since you believe the portion of the text pertaining to water in a wooden sense, do you also advocate heart transplants for potential converts?
Answer to Michael:
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not advocate sprinkling. The Orthodox Church practices full immersion. The portion of the text talking about the heart is also the same portion that is talking about the Holy Spirit, so obviously that part is an allusion to something spiritual or figurative if you like.
As far as who is doing the sprinkling in the text, obviously God is, just like He is the one that parted the Red Sea, which Paul says Moses was baptized by, and He is the one who created the flood that Noah safely passed through, which Peter says prefigures baptism. When we are baptized today, who do you suppose provides the water & the minister, obviously God does. Yes, someone performs the ceremony but it is done in the Name of Jesus therefore it is God at work in us.
Why do you attempt to utilize a wooden litteral interpretation for the water and not for the heart? The sprinkling of the water in that text is the proleptic precursor of the fulfillment of justification in Christ. You suggest (via conjecture) that "water can only be applied to the outside of your body." This statement carries the assumed position that baptism is in view in Ez 36. What you have done repeatedly now is commit circular reasoning. You cannot utilize the assumption of baptism while contending for baptism. You did this in your response on John 3. The burden of establishing why you feel Ez 36 refers to Christian baptsim is entirely upon you. Simply because Eph 5:26 uses the words "washing" and "water" does not mean that it must correspond to baptism. The text itelf precludes that. How do you wash someone with water "from the word?" Clearly, metaphor is being utilized; so too in Ez 36.
ReplyDeleteWhile you are correct in identifying that baptism corresponds to the flood waters of Noah's day, you fail to see the clear and present consequences of such an acknowledgement. Did the flood waters save Noah? Or was the water the judgement of God on humanity? If you choose the former, your failing to see the fact that it was not the flood but the boat in which Noah built by virtue of God given faith (Heb 11:7) that provided salvation from the flood. If you choose the latter, to be consistent you must acknowledge that the water of the flood was that which Peter states baptism corresponds to. In that case, baptism is not that which is salvithic, but that which represents the judgment of God upon Christ like the flood waters.
That aside, let us cut to the quick in this discussion. Romans 4:1-8 precludes your belief. Justification is by faith. The Scriptures do recognize a distinction between baptism and faith. Thus, baptism is not a requirement for the remission of sins.
"According to Jesus, faith in Christ, merely believing in Jesus is a work we are to do (John 6:27-29). Choosing to believe something is something you do, which makes it a work."
ReplyDeleteThis is rather humorous.
Rom 4:1-8 What then shall we say was gained by [1] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Paul very clearly deliniates between that which is faith and that which is works. Your attempting to pit Christ against His own Apostle. In John 6, Jesus was casting aside the notion that works of righteousness are that which God requires for salvation. Jesus refutes that notion by positing belief in Him alone as the "work."
What are the "works of righteousness" that God is talking about? I mean list them.
ReplyDeleteMike said:
ReplyDeleteThe text itelf precludes that. How do you wash someone with water "from the word?" Clearly, metaphor is being utilized
you may have mispoke, it is washed with water "through" the word
You must remember that water baptism is a spiritual act, not a phsyical one. The water is not magic and is of no effect by itself. But it is an effectual channel of grace precisely because of the "word" of God.
The water combined with the word of God saves you because of the blood of Jesus.
Mike said,
ReplyDelete“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
The above verse is Gen 15. But you forget that Abraham believed and obeyed God in Gen 12, Gen 13 & Gen 14. Genesis 15 is many years later.
James chapter 2, says Abraham was justified when he sacrificed his son Isaac in Gen 22, and then he refers back to the same verse in Gen 15 that Paul did.
Clearly Abraham was justified by his faith and obedience, not by his faith alone.
Romans 3-5 main theme is constantly contrasting circumcision with faith.
Romans 2 clearly says those who persist in doing "good" works will inherit eternal life.
Romans 3:28 says, we are justified by faith apart from "works of the law". Works of law(i.e. circumcision) would be something you can boast about. So when you get to Romans 4 obviously Paul is talking about the same kinds of works when he says Abraham has nothing to boast about.
Rom 4:12 he is the father of those who "WALK" in the footsteps of the faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Yes we are justified by faith, but what kind of faith? Not faith alone(1 Cor 13:1-3) but a faith working in love(Gal 5:6)
Have you ever wondered why the phrase "faith" alone" is found nowhere in the Bible? If it were it would obviously contradict scripture.
I am aware of Genesis 15:6, but I am speaking of Rom 4:1-8. You suggested that Abraham believed God in Gen 12, 13, 14. I find that assertion unrelated since what Moses was referring to is that belief (or faith) that resulted in the justification of Abraham. While many people can believe God in a great many ways, not all will be saved and credited with the righteousness of Christ. The text is speaking of saving faith, and not just generalized belief. The Apostle explicitly tells us that Abraham was justified by faith and not works. Therefore your statement "Abraham was justified by his faith and obedience, not by his faith alone" indicates that your problem lies with the Apostle.
ReplyDeleteJames 2 is comparing two kinds of faith; real faith that produces works, and faith that merely acknolwedges God much like that of demons. Therefore, what you have done is propose a red herring. First you attempted to pit Jesus over and against Paul, and now you place James against Paul. Silly.
Love? To love one another, or to love God? That'd be the Law. So no, faith working in love is not salvithic, because works are not salvithic.
To answer your question, the Apostle tells us that God justifies the ungodly by faith apart from works. So, should you remove works from the equation, what are you left with? Faith alone.
Now look, you have proposed that both works and faith justify. Please tell me how you can justify (pun intended) such a belief in light of the following texts:
Rom 4:4-6 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works
Eph 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
And BTW, note the proper relationship between faith and works made by the Apostle in the above text; God given faith saves alone, but saving faith is always that which produces works.
So are you saying that the faith Abraham exibited in Gen 12, 13 & 14 did not justify him?
ReplyDeleteAre you also saying the faith he exhibited in Gen 22 did not justify him?
As I stated before, your appeal to Gen 12-14 is a red herring. Does the text state that Abraham was justified prior to 15:6? If it does not, then I'll limit my position to what is stated in the text. Your appeal to James and the account in Gen 22 are also red herrings. James is comparing two kinds of faith and subsequently using the term "justified" in a different sense.
ReplyDeleteYour attempt at obfiscation is quite revealing. Why won't you address Romans 4? Now please, address what I have actually stated.
No, Jesus, Paul & James are all in perfect harmony, you are just misinterpreting and adding words or ideas not in scripture.
ReplyDeleteI mispoke earlier when I said (faith and obedience), I should have said Abraham was justified by his obedient faith.
You admitted yourself that in James he is talking of two kinds of faith, and I agree. He contrasted real(saving)faith and dead faith(the kind demons have).
Now in Romans it speaks of the faith Abraham had, the (real saving) faith that he exibited in Gen 12,13,14,15 & 22.
As there are two kinds of faith(as in James) so also in Romans & Eph there are two kinds of works.
In Romans 2 Paul clearly says to those who do "GOOD" works and in Eph 2:10 as well, we are created to do "GOOD" works
3:21 rightousness apart from LAW, 3:27 where then is boasting? 4:2 if Abraham was justified by WORKS, he had something to boast about. (LAW & WORKS clearly referring to the same thing, something you can boast about)
However, in Romans 3:28 Paul clearly says "WORKS OF THE LAW" and in Romans 4:13 he just says "LAW". So if keep everything in context when he just says works or he just says law he is referring to "WORKS OF THE LAW" (Circumcision, etc.)
So you have the good works that Christians perform out of the fruit of their faith and you have Works of the Law that Paul says the Jews were trying to keep.
Also, notice Paul never uses the phrase faith alone. He also does not say justified by faith separate and exclusive of anything else(as you erroneously infer), just faith apart from works of the law.
You added the word alone which is not in the text. I added the word obedient which you find in Romans 1:5 & 16:25.
You then questioned love. Notice in Galations 5:5 Paul says, "neither circumcision or uncircumcision has any value(again contrasting faith & wks of law) the ONLY thing that counts is faith WORKING in love. Also, in 1 Cor 13 he says faith without love is nothing.
So faith - love = nothing. Are you trying to say we are saved by dead faith?
If a true, genuine, born again person after 5 years claims to be a Christian, but you look at his life and there is ZERO evidence of any good fruit or good works over those 5 years what do you conclude. He is not saved! He was never saved! So we can conclude faith without works is dead faith. (not faith - works = faith alone)
Jesus, Paul & James quite clearly all agree with each other:
Jesus said,
"not all who call me Lord will inherit eternal life, but those who DO the will of God"
"he who endures to the end will be saved"
"separating the sheep & goats"(Matthew 25:31-46)actually read that one - good stuff
Paul said, "those who by persistence in doing good works will inherit eternal life"
"So then, my beloved, just as you have always OBEYED, not as in my presence only, WORK out your salvation with fear and trembling
"God commands all men everywhere to repent" Acts 17
James said, "a mans'faith and actions work together; you see a person is justified by what he does, NOT BY faith alone"
"do not merely listen to the word, DO what is says",
"religion God accepts as pure & faultless is this: look after orphans and widows and keep from being polluted by the world"
So clearly I do not pit them against each other, they all absolutely agree with one another.
You have misinterpreted works to mean any good deeds, faith as a one time internal event, love as a work, you added the word alone to scripture which clearly is not there.
I have merely quoted scripture and let it speak for itself.
To sum it up, we are saved by grace through faith, and we continue to be saved by an active, obedient, working faith just like Abraham was, not by keeping the rituals and ceremonies of the Jewish law. And we will be ultimately saved at the day of judgemet if we run the race so as to win the prize.
Here is a place that shows more of the similar truth of Terry's comment.
ReplyDeletehttp://beholdallthingsnew.blogspot.com/
Was looking back over all the posts on this blog-Standing to Reason.
ReplyDeleteSteve and I made some really good points which were never answered. If we could just put Acts 10 on the shelf for a bit(that looks like one none of us will come into complete agreement on) outside of that, I think we have some rock solid exegesis which is not only biblical but also historical. After all, the true Christian Church is a real living thing, not just an idea or a philosophy one finds in a book.
Incidentally, I agree with that last sentence, I just don't think the "visible" Church and the "true" Church perfectly line up. I think they overlap.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I'm open to your request, and I did say in a recent post that I had relented from my stubborn refusal to address your or Steve's arguments until you agreed with me on Acts 10. And let me just preface what I'm about to say by saying that I am sincerely trying to be as heartfelt and respectful as I can be. I'm trying to stop being as reactionary as perhaps I might have been in the past.
With that said, in that thread I asked you, or Steve, or Aaron, to help me by providing a New Testament, post-Pentecost example of either:
1. The manifestation of tongues or prophecy, gifts given by God, in those who have not "received the Holy Spirit"
or 2. Multiple senses in which one "receives the Holy Spirit"
I have not had either of those things demonstrated, and while you attempted to demonstrate the latter, I refuted that (and even posted on Christ's breathing on the Apostles). So before I respond to those points you feel I haven't addressed, put yourself in my shoes for a moment. Why, from my perspective (the one I'm asking you to temporarily don), is it ok for you to insist we table the Acts 10 discussion and that I address those points you feel I haven't addressed, when nobody has addressed my points regarding Acts 10? Why is it legitimate for me to do the reverse, and insiste we table those points until my argument from Acts 10 is answered (which it has not been)?
Can you see why I'm hesitant to abide by your request? I'm not saying I won't do so, I'm just asking if you can empathize with where I'm coming from. I mean, while the answers I've given to the points leveled against my position haven't satisfied several of you, at least I've offered up answers, whereas nothing approaching an answer has been offered to me. That I'm being asked to just put that aside really frustrates me, you know?
The last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph should have read, "Why [isn't] it legitimate for me to do the reverse..."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't have a problem with Acts 10.
ReplyDeleteIf God chose to give the indwelling of the Spirit in that case prior to baptism, that does not have an effect on the meaning of any of the other verses as far as the normative way of being saved, and as far as what the Gospel message really is. We can't put God in a box, He is free to do as He pleases, and I think He can show mercy as He pleases as well.
I do agree it would be good to get a crystal clear response from Steve on Acts 10. I have had explanations of that verse described, I am just not 100% buying into them at this point.
I'm glad you recognize the truth of Acts 10, but you didn't just say you had made points, you said Steve had, and you suggested I should table Acts 10 and respond to them. I'm asking if you understand why I'm hesitant to do so, given that while I've offered answers to them all--which may nevertheless be unsatisfying--neither he nor Aaron has attempted to answer my points re: Acts 10.
ReplyDeleteI clearly addressed Romans 4 as Michael requested. I will assume as he had no response he decided to agree with me.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome to assume that, but it would be foolish to do so, just as it would be foolish to assume that from my decision not to respond to your recent comments directed toward me. Not responding neither means that we have decided to agree, nor does it mean that we have no response.
ReplyDelete