Although some of my detractors might assume I would uncritically hold firm to this response to the argument for baptismal regeneration from Acts 2:38, the reality is that I've been giving it a lot of thought and further researching the topic, and may be at the beginning of a process of changing my mind. This is not to say that I am beginning to be open to the idea that salvation isn't experienced until water baptism; the whole of Scripture militates against that heresy. Rather, I'm beginning to think that there is a better understanding of Acts 2:38 which is nevertheless fully consistent with the "grace alone through faith" gospel that Jesus and His Apostles preached.
WANTED FOR BANK ROBBERY
Let me first explain why I am beginning to be skeptical that εἰς can be understood to mean "because of" or "on account of." The modern English word "for" can be understood in this fashion ("Jesse James Wanted For Bank Robbery"), and it seemed to me that in Matthew 3:11 and Matthew 12:41 εἰς is used in the same way. In the former passage, John said he baptized εἰς repentance, and I argued that obviously repentance doesn't result from baptism; instead, I said, John baptized "on account of" repentance, as a sign one was repentant. In the latter passage, Jesus says the Ninevites repented εἰς the preaching of Jonah, and I argued that obviously Jonah didn't preach as a result of the Ninevites' repentance; instead, I said, the Ninevites repented "because of" the preaching of Jonah. Therefore, I reasoned, there was a precedent for understanding εἰς in this way in Acts 2:38.
However, upon further reflection and research, I'm beginning to rethink that line of reasoning. Although Matthew 3:11 and Matthew 12:41, among a few other passages, seem at first to support this minority understanding of εἰς, I think there are perfectly reasonable intepretations of these passages which do not utilize a minority understanding of the Greek word. John didn't merely baptize people who were repentant; those who were committed to a life of repentance were baptized into that life of repentance. The Ninevites didn't merely repent on account of Jonah's preaching; they repented toward or into that which Jonah preached. These interpretations would seem to do as much justice to the meaning of the texts without diverting from the normal use of εἰς.
Therefore, what I felt was a biblical precedent for understanding εἰς to mean "on account of" or "because of" no longer seems to qualify as that precedent, particularly in light of how rarely the word is even argued to be used in this fashion. With that in mind, while I am open to the possibility that this is what was meant, I'm inclined to search for a better answer to the argument from Acts 2:38 for baptismal regeneration.
REPENT FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS
A friend whom I interviewed in episode 11 of my podcast commented on one of my posts, saying, "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." At first I think I glossed over this and didn't give it a lot of thought, but now I'm beginning to think this is the answer to the problem.
The original text of Acts 2:38 begins as follows: 1) Μετανοήσατε 2) καὶ βαπτισθήτω 3) ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The word Μετανοήσατε is the second person plural imperative of the word μετανοέω meaning "repent." That means, it could more specifically be translated, "All of you [second person plural] repent." The word βαπτισθήτω is the third person singular imperative of the word βαπτίζω meaning "baptize," and in the phrase ἕκαστος ὑμῶν, the word ἕκαστος meaning "each" is the third person singular. This means the phrase could be rendered "each one [third person singular] of you be baptized [third person singular] in the name of Jesus Christ."
What is the point of this, you might ask? The rest of Acts 2:38 reads εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν in most manuscripts, meaning "for the forgiveness of sins." But in some variant manuscripts the rest of Acts 2:38 reads, εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, meaning "for the forgiveness of your sins." And there, the word ἡμῶν, like "repent" earlier in the verse, is in the second person plural. The importance of this is that in Greek, verbs and nouns match one another in gender, plurality and person. Since "repent" and "your sins" are both in the second person plural, but "be baptized" is in the third person singular, it seems to be repentance that is "for the forgiveness of your sins," not baptism.
HINGING ON A TEXTUAL VARIANT
One Oneness Pentecostal critic of this interpretation of Acts 2:38 writes,
"the argument hinges on a textual variant. In the Textus Receptus and Majority Text, the second humon is absent. If the Textus Receptus and Majority Text reflect the original wording at this point, the TPS [traditional Protestant soteriology] argument crumbles into dust. Considering the fact that the entire case against the OPS [Oneness Pentecostal soteriology] interpretation of Acts 2:38 is grounded on this textual variant, TPS advocates need to demonstrate that the second humon is original to the text."
Some will respond saying that the case is strong for believing that τῶν and ὑμῶν were, indeed, in the original. Luther B. McIntyre Jr. puts it this way:
admittedly, ὑμῶν does not appear in all manuscripts. This absence in those manuscripts may be because of a tendency to follow the shorter rendering "forgiveness of sins" (ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν), not "forgiveness of your sins," in Matthew 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; and 24:47.19. In these four occurrences in the Gospels the word "sins" occurs without the article and without a pronoun. In Acts 2:38, however, "sins" has the definite article and is followed by the pronoun ὑμῶν. ἁμαρτιῶν occurs in the New Testament 12 times with the definite article. In 9 of those 12 a personal pronoun in the genitive is associated with it. In Romans 7:5 ἁμαρτιῶν is used adjectivally, in which case a pronoun is not indicated. In Acts 3:19 and 22:16 the articular τὰς ἁμαρτίας occurs with a personal pronoun in the genitive. In every case in Luke-Acts the articular "sins" also has a personal pronoun in the genitive. The evidence supporting the inclusion of ὑμῶν in the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" in Acts 2:38 is thus quite strong.
Now, I don't find the case as convincing as McIntyre does, and do not think the evidence is strong one way or the other that ὑμῶν was, in fact, in the original. However, I do believe that the variant's existence lends support to the view that this is what Peter meant. In other words, though the original may have lacked ὑμῶν, thus allowing "forgiveness of sins" to be connected to either "repent" or "be baptized," the variant's existence lends support to the understanding that Peter intended to connect forgiveness of sins with repentance and not baptism. This is further evidenced by looking at that to which forgiveness is connected elsewhere.
REPENTANCE FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
Consider that both Mark and Luke record that John the baptist was "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Whether Mark and Luke were saying it was actually John's baptism being referred to, or that John was pointing toward the soon-to-come New Covenant baptism in Christ's name, either way it is not baptism, but repentance, which is "for the forgiveness of sins." John indeed expected the decision to be baptized to be made by one who was already repentant, saying, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance" (Luke 3:7-8). Josephus sheds further light:
"...John, that was called the Baptist...commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness..." (Antiquity of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5)
So John urged those who were already repentant to be baptized, and it was the repentance, not the baptism, which led to the forgiveness of sins. This lines up perfectly with the interpretation of Acts 2:38 which connects forgiveness of sins with repentance, and not with baptism. Look at Jesus' parting words to His disciples in Luke 24:45-49:
"45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.'"
Notice what exactly Jesus said would be proclaimed to all the nations beginning from Jerusalem: repentance for forgiveness of sins. When did this proclamation begin? At Pentecost, at Acts 2:38. This serves as powerful evidence that there it is repentance, not baptism, which results in the forgiveness of sins. Indeed, in Acts 3:19 Peter tells the Jews, "repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away."
Perhaps the most powerful proof that it is repentance, and not baptism, which Peter connected with forgiveness of sins, is found in the disciples response to Peter in Acts 11:18. After Peter had witnessed the saving indwelling of the Holy Spirit being received by the Gentile Godfearers in Acts 10:43-48, he recounted the story to the apostles in Jerusalem, and they "glorified God, saying, 'Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.'" Cornelius and his household entered into life, not because they were baptized, but because they had repented.
NOT AS A RESULT OF WORKS
You might at this point interject, saying, "But Cornelius' household hadn't yet repented of their sins when they received the Holy Spirit." Alternatively, if you've read my blog or listened to my podcast for any length of time, you'll know that I believe salvation is, as Paul put it in Ephesians 2:8-9, "by grace...through faith...not as a result of works, so that no one may boast," and you might wonder if I am contradicting myself by saying the works of repentance bring about forgiveness of sins. The question is, what is the repentance commanded in Acts 2:38? What is the repentance which was granted to Cornelius' household which led their receiving the Holy Spirit?
The word is μετανοέω (metanoeō) and combines the words μετά (meta), meaning "after" or "behind," and νοέω (noeō), meaning "to understand" or "to think upon." Repent means, simply, "to change one's mind." We often think the definition of repentance includes outward works demonstrating our change of mind, but that's not really the biblical definition. Paul told King Agrippa in Acts 26:20 that he had been declaring to the Gentiles "that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." The word "appropriate" there is the Greek ἄξιος (axios) meaning "befitting" or "congruous." Paul was telling the Gentiles to change their minds toward God and perform deeds befitting their change of mind.
This conforms to the relationship John the baptist saw between repentance and deeds. In Matthew 3:8 and Luke 3:8 John tells the Jews, "bear fruits in keeping with repentance." The word rendered "in keeping with" is again the word ἄξιος meaning "befitting." John was telling the Jews to bear fruit which is "congruous" with their repentance. A tree isn't an apple tree because it bears apples; a tree bears apples because it is an apple tree. Likewise, the deeds which ought to accompany repentance are not part and parcel of the repentance; they flow from, and are befitting or congruous with, a genuine change of mind.
REPENTANCE AND FAITH
So if repentance fundamentally means a "change of mind," the question remains, what exactly did John and Peter mean when they connected forgiveness with repentance (and not baptism)? In Acts 20:21 Paul said he had testified to Jews and Greeks concerning "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." In Acts 19:4 he told some Ephesian disciples that "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." In Mark 1:15 Jesus says, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
You see, the kind of change in thinking which leads to life is the change of mind from being oriented away from God to being oriented toward God through faith in Jesus Christ. True, saving repentance which results in the forgiveness of sins is recognizing one's sinfulness and placing faith and trust in the Son of God whose sacrifice alone atones for sin. Yes, such a saving change of mind bears fruit, resulting in works, but it is not the works which bring about the forgiveness of sin. They flow out of the change of mind which already resulted in the forgiveness of sin.
This is why Peter and the disciples in Jerusalem understood that when Cornelius and his household received the saving indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that they had been granted "the repentance that leads to life." You see, immediately following Peter's statement that "everyone who believes in [Christ] receives forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43), "the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message" (Acts 10:44). Upon being told that salvation comes to those who believe in Jesus Christ, Cornelius and his house believed, and thus received the Holy Spirit. As Peter said, "God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 11:17).
WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH
Having seen that the saving repentance that results in forgiveness of sins is the change of mind which places one's trust in Jesus Christ, let's look at a bunch of other passages which teach precisely that. In John 3:16 Jesus says, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." In Acts 10:43 Peter says, "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." Does "whoever believes in Him" and "everyone who believes in Him" include anybody who has yet to be baptized, who has yet to repent from every one of his sins? Of course it does. The kind of repentance that leads to life is belief in Jesus Christ.
In Acts 13:38-39 Paul says, "through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things." When the Jailer asked what he must do to be saved, Paul and Silas respond, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:30-31). In Romans 10:4 Paul writes, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes," and in Romans 1:16 he writes that the gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes."
The reason Acts 2:38 and some other passages connect salvation with repentance, whereas the above passages and many more say only that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary and are silent concerning anything else, is because saving repentance is faith in Jesus Christ. Saving repentance is the changing of one's mind from being oriented away from God to being oriented toward God through faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
REPENT FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, AND BE BAPTIZED
Returning to Acts 2:38, when Peter says, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins," he is not saying "be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins." Rather, Peter is saying, "Repent (and be baptized) for the forgiveness of your sins." This chiasmus, or inverted parallelism, could be justifiably rendered, "Repent for the forgiveness of your sins, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
Baptism is a work to which any genuine Christian, having sincerely repented toward God through faith in Jesus Christ, should in obedience submit. And a professing Christian who, on an ongoing basis, rebelliously refuses to be baptized, is not bearing fruit befitting true repentance. But if such a professing Christian is one in name only, and is not truly saved, his lack of salvation is not because he has refused to be baptized; it is because he hasn't truly repented through faith in Christ. Conversely, a saved Christian who has submitted to baptism in water received forgiveness of sins because of, and at the time of, repentance toward God through faith in Jesus Christ; his baptism flowed out of, but did not result in, that forgiveness of sins.
So yes, I believe I am on the verge of changing my mind and conceding that εἰς in Acts 2:38 likely means what it means virtually everywhere else: "unto" or "into" or "in order to." But it is the change of mind in placing one's faith and trust in Jesus Christ which Peter said was "for the forgiveness of sins," not the baptism in water which is a deed "befitting" or "congruous" with the saving change of mind already made. More verses remain to be more closely examined, but Acts 2:38 confirms the only God-glorifying (and not man-glorifying) understanding of salvation: salvation by faith alone.
APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- BAPTISM AND FORGIVENESS IN ACTS 2:38, Luther B. McIntyre Jr.
- Does Water Baptism Save? by The Middletown Bible Church
- Baptism and Acts 2:38 by Matt Slick (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)
Definition of HERESY
ReplyDelete1) a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2) a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
Who are you accusing of heresy? Be certain you have the authority to judge, before you make the decision.
I use the word in the sense that Dee Dee Warren uses it, namely, a heresy is a belief which calls into serious question the salvation of the one who believes it. It's not simply a view which is unbiblical; every single one of us believes one or more things that are unbiblical, and we won't discover all the places where we erred until the resurrection. It's beyond that; it's a belief which so contradicts the heart of the gospel that belief in it is potentially evidence that the one who believes in it doesn't genuinely believe in the gospel.
ReplyDeleteAs for authority, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, all of whom claim the kind of authority you seem to insist is required to condemn a belief as heresy, the Bible says that while we are not to judge individuals, we are to judge ideas, testing them in light of Scripture. No other authority than the Bible is required for that.
Chris quoted Luke 24:47.......
ReplyDeleteand that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
I looked at numerous translations, 90% said "repentance AND forgiveness of sins" not FOR. In Greek the word is KAI which means AND.
So, I don't think you got that verse quite correct.
You said baptism is a work a genuine Christian should submit to. OK, according to the Bible Alone, exactly what is baptism, why should we do it and when should we do it? Also, what is the benefit of doing it?
One of the articles I link to addresses that, but the NASB, the Amplified Bible, NLT, and CEV all render this verse "for the forgiveness of sins." So if you'd like to argue with the translators of those versions, you're welcome to.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Bible alone, we should do it because Christ commanded it be done, we should do it when we believe Jesus died for our sins, and the benefit of doing it is the knowledge that one has been obedient to Christ.
Incidentally, here is how one proponent of baptismal regeneration attempts to refute this understanding of Peter's words:
ReplyDelete"Objection #2. In Acts 2:38, the forgiveness of sins is a result of repentance, and not a result of baptism. This argument is based upon making a distinction between '(all of you) Repent,' and 'each of you be baptized.'
Answer: 0 out of 25 translations I have available render it this way. Repentance is tied to the forgiveness of sins in that repentance is a prerequisite for "baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
This is not even a real attempt to answer the objection. None of the translations explicitly connect the forgiveness of sins with baptism at all; they merely render the words in approximately the order written, which in the original Greek is not what necessarily determines the intended meaning.
Statement: "I use the word in the sense that Dee Dee Warren uses it, namely, a heresy is a belief which calls into serious question the salvation of the one who believes it. It's not simply a view which is unbiblical; every single one of us believes one or more things that are unbiblical, and we won't discover all the places where we erred until the resurrection. It's beyond that; it's a belief which so contradicts the heart of the gospel that belief in it is potentially evidence that the one who believes in it doesn't genuinely believe in the gospel.
ReplyDeleteAs for authority, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, all of whom claim the kind of authority you seem to insist is required to condemn a belief as heresy, the Bible says that while we are not to judge individuals, we are to judge ideas, testing them in light of Scripture. No other authority than the Bible is required for that."
Response: Accepted. Thank you for clarifying.
In regard to baptism being in response to repentance, I agree and would further extend that to be a requirement for forgiveness of sins. I don't think salvation can be attained without repentance and that repentance would lead one to be baptized, and therefore receive the forgiveness of sins. Would you agree?
As I demonstrate in the article above, "repent" as in Acts 2:38 simply means to "change one's mind," from being inclined away from God to being inclined toward God, through faith in Jesus Christ. Hence, "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins," as Peter told Cornelius at which point Cornelius believed and received the Holy Spirit. Forgiveness of sins results from this change of mind, not from the deeds which follow this change of mind.
ReplyDeleteSo the Scripture teaches that forgiveness of sins results from, and at the time of, placing genuine faith and trust in Jesus Christ, which is a change of mind. But a true, saving change of mind produces deeds "befitting" it, or "congruous" with it, and such deeds include baptism, among other things.
I couldn't help but notice you always refer to salvation as a one time event or moment in time.
ReplyDeleteThat is not how the early church understood it.
There are numerous Scriptures where the verb "believes" occurs in the Greek present tense. Greek scholars and commentators (both Calvinist and non-Calvinist) have noted that Greek present tense verbs refer to ongoing or continuing action. Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee supplies a literal translation of several verses where the Greek word translated "believes" (in our modern translations) occurs in the tense of continuing action.
John 3:15, "...in order that everyone believing may have eternal life in him."
John 3:16, "...in order that everyone believing in him should not perish but should have eternal life."
John 3:36, "The one believing on the Son has eternal life."
John 5:24, "The one hearing my word and believing him who sent me has eternal life."
John 6:35, "the one believing in me shall never thirst."
John 6:40, "...that everyone beholding the Son and believing in him should have eternal life."
John 6:47, "The one believing has eternal life."
John 11:25, 26, "The one believing in me, even though he dies he shall live; and everyone living and believing in me shall never die."
John 20:31, "...in order that by means of believing you may have life in his name."
Romans 1:16, "it is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing."
1 Corinthians 1:21, "it pleased God ... to save the one believing."
To a Greek speaking person in the first or second century, that is how those verses would all have been understood.
This is no problem at all for the Calvinist, such as myself.
ReplyDeleteBut Calvinism aside, the New Testament authors spoke of salvation primarily in the past tense, and a little in the present and future tenses. The simple fact of the matter is that the only way salvation and rebirth can be spoken of in the past tense is if it is, in fact, a one-time event. The meaning of the present and future tense usages of the word are debatable, but no New Testament author believed one could be born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again.
If mere belief, genuine belief, was the thing that warranted salvation, or in other words, if one has genuine belief then they are saved, that would mean that Satan and all of the demons would be saved, as they have genuine faith and belief in Jesus.
ReplyDeleteIncorrect. We discussed this before, both in writing and in person, and it honestly hurts me somewhat that you seem not to have listened to much of what I said.
ReplyDeleteThe reason you're wrong on this point is twofold. First, the Bible never speaks of fallen angels as having the opportunity to be saved. Only mankind has said opportunity; demons are doomed.
Second, "mere belief" is not the same as "genuine belief." That is to say, it is not mere intellectual assent. Biblical belief in Christ is a trust in the atoning work of Christ; a recognition that one is a sinner and a trust in the work of Christ as the only propitiation for sin. Demons may believe Jesus exists and is the Son of God, but they don't trust in His work as the atonement for their sins.
So just as I explained to you before, but sadly was not listened to apparently, this is not an argument against what the Bible teaches about salvation being the result of genuine faith alone.
Chris, translations routinely rearrange the word order, insert words, insert parentheses, and even change the wording all of the time. If the translators thought it meant what you say, then we would expect for them to either insert parentheses like you did, or change the wording around. But of the 25 translations I have available at my fingertips, none of them do. All of the translations arrange it through wording/punctuation that either repentance and baptism is into forgiveness, or baptism is into forgiveness. Most of them indicate it is baptism.
ReplyDeleteFor example, take the NRSV. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." The punctuation indicates that it is baptism, not repentance, that is into forgiveness. Most English translations agree with this. But none of them punctuate it so that repentance apart from baptism is into forgiveness.
Thayer, who literally wrote the book on translating NT Greek into English, says Acts 2:38 means to be baptized to obtain the forgiveness of sins.
You make a big deal about all those verses that talk about belief and salvation, or repentance and salvation, without mentioning baptism. Romans 10:10 says, "and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." So confession with the mouth is for salvation, which would contradict your point about being faith/repentance alone. Of course, Romans 10:5-13 is actually referring to water baptism, since baptism requires you first believe, repent, and confess. Then you call on the name of the Lord for salvation by being baptized into His name.
Something you have not been able to do is explain the purpose of baptism. Once you deny all the reasons given for baptism in the Bible, there is nothing left. That is why, according to you, it is an empty command. It is like the Nike slogan, "Just do it." There is no real meaning or purpose.
What does it mean to be baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord? I have not seen you address this yet. It means to be baptized into the authority of, to come under the possession of the one you are baptized into. This is clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 1:10-15.
In Corinth, there were divisions in the church. Different groups claimed to belong to different preachers. Some even claimed to belong to Paul. Paul proves they do not belong to him, since they were not baptized into (eis) his name. In fact, they weren't baptized into Peter's name, nor Apollos' name. Paul's implication was that they were all baptized into the name of the Lord. Thus, they all belonged to the same Lord. Therefore they were one group, since there are no divisions in Christ. Thus, water baptism into the name of the Lord is baptism into Christ, and baptism into His church.
So later, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, when Paul says they were all baptized into (eis) one body, this is water baptism into the name of the Lord. That is how they were all baptized into one group, into Christ, into His body the church.
You quote Ephesians 2:8-9 out of context when you claim it is through faith apart from any works. Jesus Himself said believing in Christ is a work we are to do in order to receive the gift of salvation. Yes, Jesus explicitly taught faith in Him was a work that we do - see John 6:26-30. This is because one either chooses to believe, or chooses not to believe. Choosing is something you do, therefore choosing to believe in Jesus is a work.
ReplyDeleteIn Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul is not saying we are saved through faith apart from ANY works. Paul is referring to the works of the Law of Moses, and circumcision in particular. We are saved by grace through faith apart from the works of the Law of Moses, and apart from circumcision. This is why Paul talks about those who place their confidence in physical circumcision in Ephesians 2:11. Paul then explains how the Gentiles, still uncircumcised, were brought into the covenant promises along with the believing Jews.
Ephesians 2:9 says, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." The boasting refers to physical circumcision, as it does in Galatians 6:13-14, where Paul contrasts those who boast in the circumcision of the flesh vs. those that boast in the cross of Jesus Christ.
In Romans 3:27-28, Paul is again referring to circumcision when he says, "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law [of Moses]." Paul then goes into a discussion of Abraham, proving he was saved by faith before he was circumcised.
The same point is made in Galatians 2:16, Paul writes, "nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law [of Moses] but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law [of Moses]; since by the works of the Law [of Moses] no flesh will be justified."
You say baptism is a work. Submitting to baptism is a work, as it is a choice like faith, but the one being baptized does not do the work. Rather, someone else baptizes them. So in the act of baptism, work is being done to them, not by them.
Steve, I look forward to your attempt to explain how Cornelius' household was not saved prior to their baptism in water.
ReplyDeleteFor my readers, recall John 3:16 in which Jesus says, "whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Recall also Acts 10:43 in which Peter says, "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." "Whoever believes" and "everyone who believes" includes, quite obviously, some who have not yet confessed Jesus as Lord verbally, some who have not yet been baptized. The biblical teaching is quite clear.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I think the stone is set.
ReplyDeleteChris, I couldn't find the post where we discussed it, and I remember speaking about it in person, although I don't have a perfect memory, and therefore could not remember how you responded, as we talked about a lot of stuff that night.
ReplyDeleteNot quite understanding your last post. We all agree with John 3:16 and Act 10:43. They are true statements, just not complete statements. Obviously someone who believes but later falls away will not be saved.
ReplyDeleteAnd your other post, you equate salvation & rebirth, which isn't really accurate. Initial conversion is a one-time event, but Jesus said, "he who endures to the end will be saved".
Aaron, are you telling me that from now on you will not use this objection anymore, since it is not a valid argument?
ReplyDeleteTerry, nobody who truly believes will fall away. As 1 John 2:19 indicates, one who falls away was never truly a believer in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAs for salvation and rebirth, John 3 does not describe one who has been reborn and can then fall away; it describes one who "is Spirit" because he has been born of Spirit. Again, the New Testament authors knew nothing of the heresy which teaches that one can be born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again, and then born again. When one has been reborn by the Spirit of God, he "is Spirit" and "shall not perish." Quite simple.
I am not entirely sure there is an argument, is genuine belief what saves?
ReplyDeleteYou argued that salvation could not come as a result of genuine belief, because if it did, the demons would be saved since the believe in Christ. But as I demonstrated, this argument doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteGod saves through a faith and trust in Jesus Christ as the only atonement for one's sins. This is genuine belief, and it is not something demons exercise, even if they had the option of being saved.
When has anyone advocated that one is born again, again, again,..................???
ReplyDeleteNot sure where that came from??
Also, the idea of "once saved always saved" is so easily refuted, there are too many verses which warn of falling away, that say 'IF' we do this or continue in that. Even Paul admitted (1 Cor 9:27) he himself could be lost.
Terry, you're right, I shouldn't imply that this is how those like yourself understand being born again. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, it continues to amaze me how powerfully sin has corrupted man's ability to cogently think, such that one could believe one who has been "born of the Spirit" could lose their salvation. Jesus says that which is born of the Spirit "is Spirit," and Paul writes in Romans 8 that "those who are according to the Spirit" "set their minds on...the things of the Spirit," and that "the Spirit of God dwells in" them, and that He "testifies with [their] spirit that [they] are children of God." Thus, the one who has been born again of Spirit is a child of God.
So while one might defy credulity and affirm a one-time birth in the Spirit while simultaneously rejecting the perseverance of the saints, one nevertheless is forced to say that when one is born again he is adopted as a child of God, then can be disowned, then re-adopted, then disowned, then re-adopted, then disowned, then re-adopted, and so on and so forth. It's just absurd.
Theologians long, long ago drove the final nail into the coffin in which your argument lies dead. The warnings against falling away in no way suggest one can lose one's salvation; rather, 1 John 2:19 demonstrates that those who fall away never belonged to Christ in the first place. The warnings are, however, one of the means by which God ensures that the genuine saints persevere.
As for 1 Corinthians 9:27, the meaning of Paul's words aren't certain, but your argument is by no means airtight. As this article demonstrates, the meaning of ἀδόκιμος is basically "not pleasing" or "unacceptable," and Paul may have simply been saying he wanted to be found as having pleased God in his ministry, found a faithful servant.
Another interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:27, explained in this article, is that as Christians we can lose out on reward in the resurrection. Many Christians, including myself, believe the Bible teaches that there are degrees of reward in the resurrection, and degrees of punishment in hell, and while salvation is wholly dependent upon the work of Christ, the degree of reward depends upon one's works in Christ. I don't want to diverge into a debate about this; my point is only that this is another possible understanding of 1 Corinthians 9:27. It simply does not challenge the consistent biblical teaching of eternal security.
ReplyDeleteThere is a distinction between "baptismal regeneration" and "baptismal remission" in the sense that some groups would affirm the necessity of baptism as a constituent element of the process of "faith". Some would affirm that "faith" "repentance" "confession" AND "baptism" all constitute parts of one individual process through which one enters "into Christ" (Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26, 27). Those who teach this would affirm that baptism brings one into contact with the benefits of the shed of Jesus Christ and that at the point of baptism one is added to the "body of Christ" (I Cor. 12:13). Churches of Christ, for example, do not believe that there is ANY salvific value to the water and that salvation wholly rests upon faith in what was accomplished by Christ in His work on the Cross.
ReplyDeleteHi, Larry. The question I'd have for that understanding is, what is the state of the new believer who has placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, but has yet to "repent" (as they understand it), confess and be baptized in water?
ReplyDeleteAs for 1 Corinthians 12:13, I think the text militates against any understanding that the baptism there is water baptism.
Incidentally, concerning your last statement, I recognize that CoC's don't believe the water of baptism itself has any salvific value. Nevertheless, many of them do believe, as the International Church of Christ does, that one's sins are not forgiven until the moment of water baptism. Saying one believes that the faith exercised in baptism has saving value but the water does not is largely meaningless, if one believes that that saving faith did not result in forgiveness until the believer obeyed the command to be baptized.
ReplyDeleteChris, all Acts 10 says is that Cornelius was miraculously empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues prior to being baptized in water. So there is nothing there "to refute."
ReplyDeleteGiven that you haven't responded to my points on 1 Corinthians 12:13, I don't think you can cite it to prove your point. Unless you can answer my point, I think this has clearly been established as referring to water baptism. At the very least, my point means the baptism in this passage is disputable.
If you look at 1 Corinthians 12, I do not believe you can prove that some of the spiritual gifts were nonmiraculous gifts. True, things like "helps" and "administrations" may not sound miraculous, but they very well could have been.
In Exodus 31:1-6, God fills certain people with "the Spirit of God in wisdom," in order to miraculously impart to them the skill and knowledge to be able to perform rather mundane tasks. We see something similar in Acts 6, where those who were to wait tables were to be men "full of the Spirit and of wisdom." So the seven chosen may very well have been miraculously enabled by the Holy Spirit in order to accomplish their mundane task.
The issue being addressed in 1 Corinthians 12 is division and selfishness, as it is being manifested in connection with their spiritual gifts. To show that they should use their gifts for each other, and not to puff themselves up, Paul points out that all of their gifts came from the same Spirit.
In 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, Paul points out that they were all baptized into one body by the same Spirit. Therefore they should act as one, and not as individuals competing with each other. Since the Holy Spirit is involved with water baptism, you cannot prove this baptism is not water baptism. Given my earlier argument, I think it has been decisively proven this verse refers to water baptism.
No where in this passage does it say their speaking in tongues, etc. is a proof that they are in Christ or saved. Nor does this passage say these miraculous gifts were received in the baptism mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13.
Chris said, "Saying one believes that the faith exercised in baptism has saving value but the water does not is largely meaningless, if one believes that that saving faith did not result in forgiveness until the believer obeyed the command to be baptized."
ReplyDeleteDoes bathing oneself in water heal leprosy? Obviously not. Naaman the leper, when he repented and decided to go to the Jordan in obedience to the word of the prophet, was not then healed. Naaman wasn't healed until he had dipped himself seven times in the Jordan River. Only then did God miraculously cleanse Naaman. God performed the miracle only when Naaman had responded not just with repentance, but the obedience of faith.
I must admit Steve has a great way of explaining things and of using scripture to back up his reasoning. He made some great points of how evangelicals have misinterpreted the word "WORKS" in Romans and Eph. to which I don't think there has been much of a rebuttel. He also made a good point that so far there has really been no good explaination of the significance and/or purpose of water baptism from Chris' side.
ReplyDeleteI think I also made some good points a couple weeks ago on at least two other posts about the examples of baptism in the Bible.
Hopefully we all agree that Peter, Paul, Phillip, & Ananias all presented the same Gospel message to their listeners.
After hearing the Gospel, the 3,000 were baptized "that day", Cornelius was "commanded" to be baptized, the Jailer was immediately baptized, the Euchnich exclaimed "look here is water"!!, Saul was asked, "what are you waiting for, be baptized"
There seems to be pattern there. One must ask, "why the consistent pattern of urgency" in all these examples?
The most logical explanation is Baptism Into Christ was part of the Gospel message.
Now if an evangelical is honest, the reality of being born again in their world is some form of accepting Christ as personal saviour, and then the sign of water baptism follows a week to two months later.(I hope you agree I'm being very generous). That is how it happens 99% of the time. They claim to go by the Bible Alone, yet in the Bible conversion and water baptism happen the same day if not the same hour in every example without exception. I would like to know, why is that?
Steve knows why I haven't yet responded to much of his points. It's because, unlike you, he refuses to conform to the Word of God which teaches that Cornelius' household was saved before their baptism in water. A couple of comments ago he claimed that they were merely empowered, but that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says they "received the Holy Spirit," using the same language as Romans 8, showing that Cornelius' household was adopted into the family of God having received the Spirit of adoption which testified within them that they were children of God. Their tongues is said in 1 Corinthians 12 to be, not in some unique category, but one of a variety of gifts manifested by the indwelling Holy Spirit Who indwells every member of the body of Christ. And on and on it goes.
ReplyDeleteI very much look forward to engaging Steve on his arguments, but am not comfortable doing so as long as he is unwilling to either engage with me concerning the actual argument--which thus far he does not--or accepts the plain teaching of Scripture.
Now, I have no problem conceding that baptism is part of the "gospel message," if what one means by that is that one who accepts the gospel should be obedient to the command to be baptized. That doesn't mean that obedience saves. As for why evangelicals "allow" new believers to go so long without being baptized, I will agree that that's a deficiency. I do think there are legitimate reasons a new believer might wait to be baptized, but speaking in generalities, the evangelical Church does tend to underemphasize water baptism.
Actually, Chris, I have no idea when you will or won't respond to my points. Sometimes, you say you will only respond if I first agree with you. Other times, you say you'll respond to my points without preconditions.
ReplyDeleteAs for your argument that Acts 10 and Romans 8 both used the same language, therefore they must refer to the same thing, I don't think you would apply that same reasoning when talking with a hyperpreterist. Would you argue that the "abomination of desolation" passages in Daniel all refer to the same event? I should hope not! So the same author in the same book can use the same phrase to refer to different things. So your point fails.
Chris says I refuse to accept "the plain teaching of Scripture." Well, which book/chapter/verse does it plainly say Cornelius was saved prior to baptism? It just isn't there. Even if we were to accept his argument, it is hardly "plainly there." This is the same Chris who refuses to believe the actually plain teaching of Acts 2:38. Both of his attempts to avoid its plain meaning have crashed and burned. And look at how Chris simply cannot accept the fact that Jesus plainly says that faith in Christ is a WORK that WE are to DO in order to receive salvation. I mean it's right there!
And if Chris doesn't want to answer me, because I'm not like Terry, then why doesn't Chris answer Terry? Terry reiterated some of my points, and asks Chris to explain just what baptism is actually for. Chris can't answer the question, because he has emptied baptism of all meaning. If such a command is ultimately so meaningless, then it doesn't make sense for water baptism to be so prominently displayed and discussed throughout the NT.
Steve, you've now dishonestly misrepresented my position by saying I've emptied baptism of meaning. Please do not lie about me, or you will no longer be welcome to comment at my blog. I believe I have been for the most part respectful toward you, and have apologized where I have failed at that. I have not, however, blatantly lied about you, which is what you've just done. If you do not want to comment here, I would understand; mine is a humble blog with hardly a reader. Nevertheless, I will not tolerate dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteIf I missed a question directed toward me by Terry, that does not mean I am unable to answer the question, and thus empty baptism of meaning. Terry, know that I fully intend to interact on all the points, both with you and with Steve. However, because Steve continues to try and manipulate me into addressing points other than the one I have told him I am willing to discuss with him, I am trying to be careful not to give him room to continue to avoid the matter at hand.
Now, Steve, I look forward to your attempt to actually address my argument concerning Cornelius. You've finally hinted at one, implying that there are multiple senses in which believers in the New Covenant "receive the Holy Spirit." This despite that 1 Corinthians 12 says the manifestation of tongues is a manifestation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which unites believers in Christ. I am looking forward to a presentation of actual biblical evidence that the New Testament presents multiple kinds of "receiving the Holy Spirit."
Chris, forget baptism for a minute. From looking at Ephesians 2:8-9 in its context, as well as John 6:26-30, this plainly refutes your entire theological system on faith and salvation. And you still have no response.
ReplyDeleteBut you do have a response. Now you appear to look for new reasons not to answer me. Now you accuse me of lying about you, because I said you make baptism an empty commandment. Well, is that a lie?
At the end of your second podcast, the reason you give for the urgency of baptism in the NT is because it was simply commanded. That perfectly illustrates the Nike slogan "Just do it" that I had brought up earlier.
In the same podcast, on the question of why baptism is commanded, according to your understanding, you believe the NT never explicitly explains the rationale for the command. Even though the purpose for water baptism is explicitly taught, as it is in Acts 2:38 for just one example. You still have not been able to come up with a credible alternative to the plain meaning of Acts 2:38.
So in your podcast, since you have emptied baptism of its Bible-given meaning, you are free to suppose a meaning of your own creation - that it is an outward sign of an inward grace. Something that is not taught anywhere in the NT.
So I did not lie. Rather, you are lying about me. You lie about me because you are not honest with the Bible nor yourself.
Yes you did lie about me. I never said that baptism has no meaning and that we should simply do it because we're commanded to; I did say we should do it because we're commanded to, but I also said what I and most protestants think baptism means--and it's not nothing. So yes, you have, in fact, lied about me.
ReplyDeleteNow, I am not looking for reasons not to answer you. I very much look forward to doing so. But you continue to try and manipulate me and to sidestep the issue concerning which I have said I will engage with you. When you are ready to engage on that issue, let me know.
In the meantime, as I said, I will not tolerate you lying about me at my blog. Again, that's probably not much of a warning, as my blog is not even a blip on the radar, and I have no delusions of grandeur. Still, if you wish to participate here, you will cease lying.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast."
ReplyDeleteThis raises 3 questions that I see. 1) How does Grace save through faith? 2) What are the works? and 3) Why does this start with for in the style of being 'because'? What is this passage referencing?
John 6:26-30 says "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?"
What do we see here?
I'd be happy to address that. First, however, can you provide any biblical evidence to support your opinion that Cornelius' household was not saved before their baptism in water, despite manifesting the gifts of tongues and prophecy which the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 12 says is a gift of the saving indwelling of the Holy Spirit that unites us in the body of Christ, and despite being said to have "received the Holy Spirit" which is not spoken of in multiple senses in the New Testament?
ReplyDeleteAnswer my question
ReplyDelete"Baptism is a work to which any genuine Christian, having sincerely repented toward God through faith in Jesus Christ, should in obedience submit."
ReplyDeleteWhy should anyone submit to this work?
I will answer your questions once we've finished discussed Acts 10. You know that I've told Steve I don't feel comfortable discussing other issues so long as he chooses to believe the Word of God is false concerning Cornelius. It wouldn't be consistent of me to do differently with you.
ReplyDelete"...there is a better understanding of Acts 2:38..." This must be the truth we see in the bible. Or it is only the truth you find outside of the entire theme of the new Testament.
ReplyDeleteYou are not on the verge of changing your mind about Acts 2:38. You are on the verge of finding another weak way to explain away the plain teaching of Scripture. What version of the bible was translated this way?
Ephesians 2 and 1 Cor 1 are directly related to the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteDoes Acts 10 explicitly say they were saved prior to their baptism in water? It does, however, explicitly say they were Baptized in water. Why would I read any other passages into this one as justification for my presupposition? I am certain you would agree that these passages are at best ambiguous as to salvation on either side of baptism. What we can both agree on is that whether they were or were not saved prior to their baptism in water, they were certainly guaranteed salvation after their baptism in water.
ReplyDeleteActs 10 does not explicitly say they were saved prior to their baptism in water, but the whole Word of God does.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I'm beginning to wonder if in fact I am being too hard-nosed about this. I definitely think there's a time to stop throwing pearls before swine, but I may not be stopping doing so in a biblical timeframe and manner. As such, I may be open to discussing with you and Steve issues concerning which we disagree, I need to think and pray about it a bit first.
In the meantime, please consider pointing me to a passage in the New Testament that shows that either: 1) those in whom the Spirit of God does not dwell in a saving fashion manifest tongues or prophecy, or 2) that the New Testament teaches that there are multiple senses in which one "receives the Holy Spirit." If either of these can be shown to be the case, I will acknowledge that perhaps there's the kind of ambiguity you're claiming there is in Acts 10.
It is interesting how there is no example of a new believer upon simply accepting the Lord either speaking in tongues or prohesying as a result.
ReplyDeleteAt Pentecost you had tongues of fire, At Cornelius' house they were zapped in the middle of the sermon, and in all the other examples there is laying on of hands. Not that it neccesarily proves anything but it does seem odd.
Also, it does say the Holy Spirit CAME UPON THEM, Acts 7:8, 8:16, 10:44. And in the other cases the Apostles laid there hands UPON THEM.
I have had it explained to me that there is some significance in whether one "receives" the HS or whether it COMES UPON YOU.
That could be the answer, but I am not 100% convinced on that angle.
At Cornelius' house I think the assumption many f us make--and I will grant that it's in large part an assumption--that Cornelius' household believed upon being told, "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." It was, after all, immediately after those words that Cornelius' household received the Holy Spirit. So I think there's at least a case to be made that that was the moment at which Cornelius' household placed genuine faith in Christ.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Holy Spirit, the text says both. In Acts 10:44 it says, "the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message." But look what Peter said immediately thereafter in verse 47: "no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did." So the Holy Spirit both "fell upon" and was "received" by Cornelius' household. As such, I don't believe any such distinction can be made.
Would you agree?
By the way, thank you for your response, Terry. I know there's been some tension on this topic in previous posts, in large part because of me.
By the way, Aaron had some questions for me here.
ReplyDeleteYou asked if I agree? Well, yes and no. Obviously if one had obtained a manifestation of the HS, then after the fact you would naturally say they had received it in some way.
ReplyDeleteThe HS "overshadowed" Mary and she was impregnated by it. I suppose in some way you might say she received it as well.
Getting off subject a little, but as to the Apostles, if Jesus breathed on them and then told them they had the authority to bind and loose sins, it seems hard to believe they could have or exercise that authoriy without the working of the HS. So in that sense, if they were already saved prior to Pentecost,(Luke 10:20 says their names are written in Heaven, that sounds pretty saved to me) then their receipt of the HS was for empowerment, not so much for salvation.
As far as to them ever being baptized, it doesn't say one way or the other, we really can't know for sure. I suppose it's possible they were during those 40 days with Jesus, but that would be pure conjecture.
Just some more thoughts............
As to this whole thing of laying on of hands:
ReplyDeleteIn Acts 6:6, people full of the Spirit have hands layed on them to give them further empowerment for ministry.
Acts 13:2-4, the same thing.
Acts 9:17 Ananias lays hands on Saul to give him his sight back.
2 Timothy 1:6 Paul gave Timothy the gift of the HS through laying on of hands.
Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the HANDS of the Apostles. (Act 5:12)
"It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery. And Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him." (Act 28:8)
So if taken in totality, I think one could potentially make the argument that these special cases of receiving the HS in a miraculous way could be seen as bestowing additional gifts or additional blessings over and above the normal indwelling of the HS.
Again not definitive, but worth examining further.........
In your opening post you cited Acts 16:30-31.
ReplyDeleteThe Jailer is a perfect example of how many infuse their doctrine of "faith alone" into the text.
We all agree that Peter and Paul cannot contradict each other.
In Peters first sermon we have the full gospel message: call on the name of the Lord and be saved, Jesus accredited by God for us, his death and ressurrection, repentance, water baptism, forgiveness of sins, receipt of the Holy Spirit, people added to the Church.
They ask Peter, "what shall we do"
Like-wise Paul is asked, "what must I do"
Where Paul says to "just believe", Evangelicals always conveniently leave out the next verse: vs 32 - "spoke the word of the Lord to him".
Now, does it make sense that Peters' sermon and "spoke the word of the Lord" are probably the same thing? If we agree that they cannot contradict each other then probably yes, and if we agree that the audience in each case had the same reaction to what they said then probably yes again.
Like-wise the Eunich, Phillip began with that verse and told him about Jesus: His reaction, "look here is water"
Like-wise Lydia, part of her response to Pauls message, "she got baptized"
Like-wise the Disciples at Ephesus, upon hearing they needed to believe in Jesus, "they were baptized"
Like-wise the Samaritans, when they believed Phillip as he preached the good news and the Name of Jesus, "they were baptized"
The Corinthians, "believed and were baptized"
The Jailer had the word of the Lord spoken to him and, "immediately he and all his family are baptized"
Does it make sense they all had the same reaction if they all heard the same Gospel message?
I think I have established a clear pattern that every time the Gospel is preached, the reaction is people get baptized.
So then the question becomes, what is the Gospel?
The following statements are ALL true:
BELIEVE and be saved,
REPENT or you will perish,
by GRACE you are saved,
BAPTISM now saves you,
you are all sons of God through FAITH,
he who ENDURES to the end will be saved,
He saved us by the LAVER of REGENERATION and RENEWAL of the Holy Spirit,
those who by PERSISTENCE IN DOING GOOD WORKS will inherit eternal life,
the only thing that counts is FAITH WORKING IN LOVE,
a man is JUSTIFIED BY WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE,
Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself,...DO THIS and you will have eternal life,
you must be BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT to enter the kingdom.
If you CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH and BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART you will be saved.
For in this HOPE we were saved,
WORK OUT your salvation WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING,
But you can't pick and choose the ones you like and the ones you don't like, agree with the clear ones and explain away or ignore the difficult ones. You must take it all as a whole. It seems to me if you take the natural, literal meaning of all the verses and keep them in their context there really are no difficult ones. (To me the ONLY difficult one is Acts 10 & 11, I will concede that)
But, clearly the pattern is that upon hearing the Gospel, people are baptized into Christ. That is the clear entrance into the life of the Church. And, clearly Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, and Galations 3:27 are looking back on their entrance into the Body of Christ.
I absolutely agree that the pattern is being baptized upon believing, and that it was what was viewed as entrance into the visible Church. Nobody here is debating that, despite how frequently it's implied that I am. However, the Scriptures teach that the heart is regenerated unto saving faith--one is born of water and Spirit, which has nothing to do with water baptism--before and without water baptism, as is taught very clearly in John 6, Acts 10, Acts 16, Romans 8 and numerous other passages. Submission in obedience to water baptism is important, and just like any command we're to obey--including water baptism and not comitting adultery--persistent disobedience is a hallmark of an unregenerate heart. But sincere baptism in water is able to please God because it comes from a heart that's already turned to God and been saved.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Mary's having been "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit cannot be argued to be the same as her receiving it. Furthermore, as you'll recall, I showed you that the Apostles didn't receive the Holy Spirit, either. So my question in the OP remains unanswered.
Didn't receive the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, that is.
ReplyDeleteTerry, if you wish to respond to that last point, please wait as I'm in the process of writing a post proving it. If you wouldn't mind waiting until it's posted, I'd appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to make is that people were baptized upon hearing the Gospel, not upon believing(which would also be true)
ReplyDeleteAlso, where in Acts 16 is regeneration taught prior to water baptism?
"14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
ReplyDeleteI will acknowledge from the outset that this verse doesn't explicitly teach that regeneration precedes genuine baptism. However, what it does explicitly say is that Lydia's faith was gifted to her. And many of us believe the biblical teaching of regeneration is just that: God's metaphorically replacing our heart of stone with a heart of flesh, inclining it toward God whereas it was once inclined away from Him.
Speaking of this verse, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, citing Olshausen, write, "showing that the inclination of the heart towards the truth originates not in the will of man. The first disposition to turn to the Gospel is a work of grace." John Gill similarly writes, "the Lord wrought upon her affections, and engaged them to divine and spiritual things; creating love in her soul to Christ, to his people, truths and ordinances; which was done by his almighty hand, taking away the stony heart, and giving an heart of flesh: he also removed the bar of unbelief, entered in himself, dispossessed Satan, and worked faith in her, to look to him, lay hold on him, and receive him, as her Saviour and Redeemer; making her willing in the day of his power, to be saved by him, and to serve him." John Wesley likewise writes, "The Greek word properly refers to the opening of the eyes: and the heart has its eyes, Ephesians 1:18. These are closed by nature and to open them is the peculiar work of God."
Now I'm not pointing to these commentators as an authority, and there are other commentators who have a contrary take on the verse, such as Coffman and McGarvey. However, their exegesis is, in my opinion, poor, and their exegesis of John 6 even poorer, which passage confirms what myself and the other commentators I've cited see in this passage. In any case, my point in citing these commentators is just to demonstrate that I'm not making something up; theologians have long recognized that Lydia's faith was God's doing and not her own.
Exactly, and just what does the text explicitly say was her response to what Paul spoke of?.... she got baptized into Christ. Now. she may also have said a prayer or called on His name or repented as well but the only thing it for sure says is that she was baptized immediately after hearing what Paul said. And then AFTER her baptism we see an acknowledgement she is a Christian,...."if you consider me a believer, come stay at my house".
ReplyDeleteThus confirming Paul and Peter are giving the same Gospel message, to be baptized for the forgiveness sins.
This passage speaks nothing of baptism for forgiveness of sins, so the confirmation you're speaking of just isn't there. Nevertheless, you're absolutely right that her response was to be baptized. But regeneration unto faith preceded it. We are baptized because we're saved.
ReplyDeleteI am simply tying all the verses together and showing Peter and Paul do not contradict each other. Peter told his listeners to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, consequently 3,000 were baptized that day.
ReplyDeleteLikewise Lydia, upon hearing the same message from Paul, responded in the same way.
Then, in Romans 6:3, or Galations 3:27 we can apply the words to both groups, as they look back on what their baptism accomplished for them as they were united to Christ in this way.
We on our side of the debate tie all the verses together, and neither do we suggest Peter and Paul contradict each other. Neither Acts 2:38, nor Acts 16 nor Acts 10 indicate that we are united to Christ through baptism; the most some of these passages do is indicate that baptism was the manner by which one became a member of the visible Church, which I do not dispute.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be implying that there is a visible Church and an invisible Church. Jesus said he would build His Church, the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and He would be with it always. Jesus also said, "and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector". In Acts, 3,000 were added to the Church that day. The Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth.
ReplyDeleteIf one becomes a member of the Church (which is the body of Christ) through baptism, then if one is not baptized they are outside of the Church. Romans 6 clearly says we are united to Him in baptism.
Now, you might try to say Romans 6, Col 2:12 Gal 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21 refer to spirit baptism only, but if that were true, we are left with no verses in the Bible telling us what water baptism means or what it is for.
The concept of a visible Church and an invisible Church is nothing novel nor nothing odd. It simply means the difference between those who are actually the body of Christ and those who in community profess to be. Not all who are the body of Christ are visibly so; not all who seem visibly to be the body of Christ are in reality. That's all.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether or not we're left with any verses that explicitly say what baptism is for, so what? I don't know about you, but I don't need God to tell me why I should do something; His telling me to do something is reason enough.
I am a Protestant, and I believe God saves a sinner at the moment he believes in Christ (John 5:24). However, I would encourage you to keep searching for a suitable interpretation of Acts 2:38 because the view you presented is false. McIntyre's argument is based on confusion with grammatical explanations, not actual Greek.
ReplyDeleteMuch time has been spent studying this out. Whether eis is referring into, unto, back to or whatever, you and many of your cohorts agree that repentance must occur prior to forgiveness of sins. Unfortunately this is a blatant perversion of what the Greek says. The word kai is the hinge point of this passage. It binds the repentance and the baptism together in that they must both be FOR remission of sins. To separate one from the other is a perversion of the Scripture. It is bound the same way in Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized..." KAI binds these two together. Baptism without belief is simply a bath. Belief without baptism is false doctrine. Separating these is perverting the Scripture. Believing (having faith) and not acting on that belief (faith) is being disobedient to YHWH. Much like Moses in Numbers 20:1-13 where he was instructed by YHWH to speak to the rock, but instead he struck the rock twice, and YHWH said “Because you did not believe me…” So we see that belief in YHWH was not even enough for Moses who had SEEN YHWH, yet was rebuked and punished by YHWH for his disobedience. Not to mention that all of the following versions translate Acts 2:38 the same, save one, the Holman Christian Standard version, which (not surprisingly) is done by a group of Calvinist translators who pervert the passage, probably, to your liking. But 28 translations including the Vulgate render Acts 2:38 in agreement. Are you arguing against all these inspired versions?
ReplyDeleteActs 2:38
[1] 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
38Then Peter said unto them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[2] American Standard Version (ASV)
38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[3] Amplified Bible (AMP)
38And Peter answered them, Repent (change your views and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves instead of rejecting it) and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of and release from your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[4] Common English Bible (CEB)
38 Peter replied, “Change your hearts and lives. Each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[5] Contemporary English Version (CEV)
38Peter said, "Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.
[6] Darby Translation (DARBY)
38And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[7] Contemporary English Version (CEV)
38Peter said, "Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.
[8] English Standard Version (ESV)
38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[9] GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
38Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift.
[10] Good News Translation (GNT)
38 Peter said to them, Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit.
[11] Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
38 "Repent," Peter said to them, "and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(continued)
ReplyDelete[12] J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
38-39 Peter told them, “You must repent and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this great promise is for you and your children—yes, and for all who are far away, for as many as the Lord our God shall call to himself!”
[13] King James Version (KJV)
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[14] Lexham English Bible (LEB)
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[15] The Message (MSG)
38-39Peter said, "Change your life. Turn to God and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so your sins are forgiven. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is targeted to you and your children, but also to all who are far away—whomever, in fact, our Master God invites."
[16] New American Standard Bible (NASB)
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[17] New Century Version (NCV)
38 Peter said to them, "Change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[18] New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
38 Peter replied, "All of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then your sins will be forgiven. You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[19] New International Version (NIV)
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[20] New King James Version (NKJV)
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[21] New Life Version (NLV)
38 Peter said to them, “Be sorry for your sins and turn from them and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and your sins will be forgiven. You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[22] New Living Translation (NLT)
38 Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[23] Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
38`Stop your wrong ways and turn back to God,' answered Peter. `And then everyone of you can be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. Your wrong ways will be forgiven you, and you will receive the Holy Spirit.
[24] Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
38 And Peter said to them, Do ye penance [Penance, he said, do ye], and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, into remission of your sins; and ye shall take the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[25] Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
38and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,
[26] Biblia Sacra Vulgata (VULGATE)
38Petrus vero ad illos paenitentiam inquit agite et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Iesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum et accipietis donum Sancti Spiritus
(continued)
ReplyDelete[27] Revised Standard Version (RSV)
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[28] New Revised Standard Version (nRSV)
Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[29] SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)
38 Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς• Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος•
Aaron, do you see how unlovingly and disrespectfully you worded your comments?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Not to mention that all of the following versions translate Acts 2:38 the same, save one, the Holman Christian Standard version, which (not surprisingly) is done by a group of Calvinist translators who pervert the passage, probably, to your liking." This is the only part of the entire comment that might be considered offensive. I simply mean to say that you would agree with this one particular translation more than the other 28 represented here. But the point of this entire comment string is lost if you focus on this one quote.
ReplyDelete...sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence...
ReplyDelete...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control...
You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
Let's contextualize this first passage:
ReplyDelete1 Peter 3:13-16 says..."Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame."
So, who is the slanderer and who is the one being slandered presumably is a matter of perspective.
Regarding the second selected passage, "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."
Do you classify our discussion here as a fruit of Satan or a fruit of the Spirit? I have tried to present this information in a spiritually fruitful manner and out of love. It is apparently not being received as such. I will try harder to do so in the future.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter."
Are you going to address the previous posts?
Yes, I will when I have a few minutes. I just pray that one day you will see how hurtful you are. When you apply words like "cohort" and "pervert" to someone you claim is a friend, you don't communicate that you love them, nor that you are open to meaningful dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI too pray that understanding will come from that meaningful dialogue we have. I sincerely hope that hearts and minds will be softened to the Truth of God's word. And the clarity will stem from seeking the truth. I pray for many things, including a discerning eye and open mind.
ReplyDeleteco·hort
ReplyDeletenoun
1. a group or company: She has a cohort of admirers.
2. a companion or associate.
3. one of the ten divisions in an ancient Roman legion, numbering from 300 to 600 soldiers.
4. any group of soldiers or warriors.
5. an accomplice; abettor: He got off with probation, but his cohorts got ten years apiece.
per·vert
verb (used with object)
1. to affect with perversion.
2. to lead astray morally.
3. to turn away from the right course.
4. to lead into mental error or false judgment.
5. to turn to an improper use; misapply.
I have been accused of these things as well, and accusations are always received with the maximum negative inference, where as, at least from me, they are meant to help change perspective. Apparently this has been acheived, and the message has been received with a change of perspective, in that you feel I am demeaning and insulting you. This is not my intention I simply want to point out that what you view as "doctrine" is a perversion or twisting (as you have used yourself) of what the scripture actually says. I will try to use brethren of false doctrine if you would prefer. Let me know. I want to try to be more loving. Is there a preferred term or phrasing you would like me to use?
Also, I still consider you friend, as well as many of the non-Christian people I know, because I believe that Paul would have viewed all of us as friends and Jesus would have for sure. So I call you friend in the biblical way, and rebuke you in love as such. I love you friend.
Exactly which army am I a part of whose soldiers comprise my cohort? Exactly what crime am I committing with those accomplices abetting me you are calling my cohort? In what sense exactly are those with whom I happen to agree my "associates?" This is nonsense. People use "cohort" with an intentionally negative connotation, to refer to one's fellow bullies or fellow criminals. And I think you were using the word pejoratively as well, just as you have frequently insulted me, like when you accused me of affirming Calvinism because I had to in order to remain a part of my church.
ReplyDeleteI'll get to your question when I can; it's easily answered. But I caution you: if you want to converse with me, show respect. I'm not afraid of arguments, and don't mind being told I'm wrong. But I do insist on respect and civility, at least from those who call me their friend. The choice is yours.
In this matter I have done that service to you. I apologize humbly for any misunderstanding I may have led you into. The added definitions are not all encompassing, and not all of them fit this situation. But we (Christians) are God's army are we not? The Sadducees and Pharisees would have seen you as a criminal would they not? Just because you don't feel they definition fits your specific situation, does not mean it is not used as a definition. Is that not the same view you have of the term "Baptismal Regeneration" which I have asked you not to use, and which you have declined to accept? I however will honor your underlying request and not refer to you and your brethren as cohorts or perverters. I also will pray that the Lord God Almighty will soften your heart to my request someday. That He will help you to harbor less anger, or at least not show it. As I pray that I can convey less anger and hostility when I am typing. I love you friend.
ReplyDeleteAaron, what it boils down to is that we can be professing Christians and honor the Lord not just in our declaring what we think is the truth, but also in the manner and in the words we choose to use when we declare it. Accusing your friend of believing Calvinism just because his church requires it--which was false--does not honor the Lord. Calling your Christian friend a criminal and a pervert does not honor the Lord. All it takes is a meager attempt to put yourself in the shoes of the one to whom you're speaking and think about how your words might be taken. It only takes a moment.
ReplyDeleteI love you as well, which is why the way I'm repeatedly treated hurts me so.
I appreciate that, and I hope to see an adequate response soon!
ReplyDelete