What's the faith in "faith only"? [Archive]

IAD

08-09-2005, 03:31 PM

Well, I'll give it a shot.

It's about understanding our chances apart from God's grace. Romans 3:23 states, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Simply stated, every person has a sin problem that keeps him from God. The idea of being short of God's glory is akin to you and me having a rock-throwing contest. I live just a couple hours from you, so I come down there to TN and we both aim to hit the North Pole. Even if you're twice the rock thrower I am, your rock is still going to fall far short of the target. As sin-stained humans, we fall far short of the target, which is sinlessness (and thus the ability for us to be in God's presence).

There are pretty dire consequences for this state. Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death..." Death! Of course, wages are something you earn by performing some deed or service. Our deeds and service earn us one nasty paycheck -- death! Even when we're trying to do what we believe are good things, they just don't get that rock much further along to the Pole. Isaiah 64:6 tells us, "...our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." Even our best isn't worthy, because it is still tainted by our own sinfulness.

Fortunately, Romans 6:23 doesn't end with death. The full verse says, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." The wages we earn with our deeds are contrasted here with a gift -- a free gift. I don't know how things work in others' homes, but on Christmas Day at our house we don't give to each other based on level of service or a performance review. We give freely out of love for one another. That's what God has offered us -- a gift in the form of eternal life, paid for by His Son, Jesus.

OK, so all of that is preparatory for this next part. One of my favorite passages of all time, Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." We're talking about a saving faith here -- a beginner's kernel of faith, where the person realizes the truths of his own sinfulness, the consequences of it, and the fact that it is not within his power to do anything about it. But then he hears that Jesus can (and will) take care of it for him, and so the Holy Spirit gives him enough faith to step out in belief and ask Jesus to save him from himself and his sin.

Titus 3:5-7 further solidifies this -- "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

There is no amount (or type) of works that can save us. The passage in Ephesians I quoted above flows right into verse 10, which says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works..." The good works are a natural by-product of a saving faith. I suppose you could say that once salvation occurs, faith and works become a sort of perpetual motion machine. That initial faith makes one want to serve his new Master. Service to Christ begets more faith as we see His Holy Spirit empower us to do things for the Lord. That faith causes us to want to serve Him more, and so on.

The idea of "faith alone," therefore, is based on the fact that our deeds and service are of no significant value (in the eternal perspective) until salvation has taken place. Salvation happens by faith, as outlined in Scripture, and then the works follow as we learn to serve Him. The good works themselves have no salvific value.

ascund

08-09-2005, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
An obviously popular doctrine is the doctrine of "justification by faith alone". I have a hard time understanding its' popularity though, since the only place the phrase "faith only" is found in the Bible is in James 2:24, where we read, "...not by faith only", and the context of this negative statement is justification!But bmerr, the context is not justification. It is written to already saved saints. The context is justifying (as in vindicate or prove) their faith before others.

But there are lots more "alone" verses that we Bible believers like. For instance, "hapax" = "once."

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. Note this is a perfect tense of sanctified. So it it not a process - which is the normal definition. This is the historic event of separation unto God that occurs at the singular moment of faith.

Just as Christ die once unto sin, he lives unto God. This is the believer's inheritance: life eternal. Once demolishes conditional security and proves OSAS.

How many times do you need to be shown the context of James before you learn that it deals with sanctification? Abraham was justified before God by faith alone (Gen 15). He justified before others through faithfulness.

This is a huge difference that you seem unable to notice.
Lloyd

DHK

08-09-2005, 06:53 PM

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

"For by grace are ye saved." This statement in itself excludes works. One might say it is by grace alone, except that the free grace of God must be accepted by faith alone. By very definition, any form of works; works of any kind at all would destroy the meaning of grace and make it mean something else. Paul states this in Romans 11:6

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
It is either by grace alone or by works. If works has anything to do with salvation, then salvation is not by grace. This is what Paul says; and he says it very plainly; very clearly. if by grace, then is it no more of grace: otherwise grace is no more grace. Grace is defined by the absence of works. It is the free unmerited favor of God. It cannot be worked for. The only way to receive God's grace is by faith, and faith alone. That is how one is saved!

"salvation is 'throgh faith.' It is "through faith," and faith alone. If Paul had meant anything else he would have inserted it here. But he didn't. He didn't insert baptism. He stated flat out that it was by faith. The rest of the verse verifies this, as the definition of grace does. It is impossible for faith to have any other thing (as works) included in it, for grace excludes it, therefore it is by faith alone. You cannot read into Scripture that which is not there. There is not work there. There is not baptism there. There is only faith there, and faith alone. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. And just to make sure you understand that Paul adds a couple of more phrases:

"that not of yourselves." It is not of works. It is not of anything that you yourself can do. All that man does is considered a work. It is not of yourself, or man's doing. It is God's doing, and that is grace. Grace that is to be received by faith and faith alone. It is not of yourselves, not of any thing that you can do--that is a work. It is impossible for you to merit salvation through baptism or any other work. Salvation is not of yourself.

Further Paul says:
"It is a gift of God." A gift cannot be earned." One does not work for a gift, else by definition it ceases to be a gift.

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

That whicm man works for he deserves. Rom.6:23 says that man's wages, (that which he has worked for is eternal death), but it also tells us that the gift of God is eternal life. The above passage verifies this saying that the one that doesn't do any work at all, but simply believes or has faith, his faith justifies him; his faith is counted for righetousness. No work = justification. Why? Because salvation is by grace through faith without works, without works of any kind, not just the works of the law, without works of baptism, without any kind of works.

Then in verse nine Paul adds:
not of works
Well how clear could that be?? Salvation is not of works. It is by faith and faith alone. It is not of works. Do we believe the Bible at this point or close our eyes to Scripture and keep repeating our mantra that salvation includes the "work" of baptism in spite of what it says here. Do we continue to deny the Word of God? Baptism is a work. There is no place in Scripture where it is referred to as a gift. It isn't. Check a dictionary. It is a work that man does. And this work nullifies the very definition of grace, which is to be accepted by faith alone; not faith plus baptism. There is a curse to those who add to the Scriptures. Salvation is not of works. How many times does Paul have to repeat things in the same passage of Scripture over and over again, before man understands this very essential truth. Salvation is not of works. It is by grace, through faith, and faith alone.

Why is that? He tells us why. "Lest any man should boast." Are you intending to arrive in heaven and boast about how you helped Jesus to atone for the sins of the world by your baptism??
DHK

ascund

08-09-2005, 09:43 PM

Hey DHK

Originally posted by DHK:
By very definition, any form of works; works of any kind at all would destroy the meaning of grace and make it mean something else. Paul states this in Romans 11:6

It is either by grace alone or by works. If works has anything to do with salvation, then salvation is not by grace. This is what Paul says; and he says it very plainly; very clearly. if by grace, then is it no more of grace: otherwise grace is no more grace. Grace is defined by the absence of works. It is the free unmerited favor of God. It cannot be worked for. The only way to receive God's grace is by faith, and faith alone. That is how one is saved!Super idea. Let's take it to the next easy conclusion. If salvation includes any part human obedience (or works of any definition), then:
___(1) faith is voided,
___(2) God’s promises are nullified, and
___(3) the Cross is canceled (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17c).

Errant attempts to use aspects of sanctification as a defintion for justification lead to confusion and heresy.

Biblical Grace or Human faithfulness!
Not really much of a choice.
Lloyd

ascund

08-09-2005, 09:47 PM

Hey IAD

Thanks for the straight shot! Your comment. . .

Originally posted by IAD:
The idea of "faith alone," therefore, is based on the fact that our deeds and service are of no significant value (in the eternal perspective) until salvation has taken place. Salvation happens by faith, as outlined in Scripture, and then the works follow as we learn to serve Him. The good works themselves have no salvific value.clearly reflects justification by faith alone followed by sanctification of works in service to our King. Thanks for this clarity!

How is it that some grasp this so easily and for others it is as if they are blindless in a heavy fog?
Lloyd

Michael52

08-10-2005, 02:02 AM

Faith -

Mt 17:20 He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you."

Lk 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you."

Lk 7:50 And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Ro 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

Ro 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:

Ro 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Ro 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Ro 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Ro 3:30 since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Ro 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Ro 4:5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Ro 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,

Ro 4:16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 2:20 It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Gal 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—

Gal 3:7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."
Gal 3:9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Gal 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."
Gal 3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."

Gal 3:14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Eph 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

Php 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—

2Ti 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Heb 10:38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him."

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Pe 1:9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

2Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Amen

ascund

08-10-2005, 07:20 AM

Hey DHK & other Bible scholars

I have noticed a pattern in these forum exchanges not peculiar to bmerr per se but embracing all who embrace substandard doctrinal beliefs.

Let me use any 3 verses related to water baptism; perhaps Acts 2, Rom 6 and I Pet 3.

Round 1: Show the proper view of Acts 2 using context to show that Acts 2 is not applicable to justification. The response uses Rom 6 as an appeal to water baptism.

Round 2: Show the proper view of Rom 6 using context to show that Rom 6 is not applicable to justification. The response uses I Pet 3 as an appeal to water baptism.

Round 3: Show the proper view of I Pet 3 using context to show that I Pet 3 is not applicable to justification. The response uses Acts 2 as an appeal to water baptism.

This cycle repeats itself showing that the water baptism regeneration group does not learn or does not want to learn from the Bible they claim to use as support for their errant dogma.

It also reveals that they are more interested in clinging to denominational interpretations than coming to the knowledge of the truth. The human-centered urge to do something is very powerful.

This cycle is very frustrating.
Lloyd

steaver

08-10-2005, 07:25 AM

Now the Bible tells us that faith without works is dead. (James 2:17,26). And yet, the "faith only" crowd insists that man is justified by faith apart from works of any kind.

In effect, the claim seems to be that man is justifed before God by a dead, workless faith, but that somehow, this dead, (yet saving) faith produces a living, fruitful, working faith, which results in the person's sanctification.
No matter how many brothers show you the truth of Jame's message, you will choose to remain in error of it's teaching and therefore remain stuck in incorrect doctrine.

If you refuse to understand the correct message from James nothing else will change your thinking either.

Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Faith to Faith to Faith from Noah to Abraham to Peter to Paul and on and on.

God Bless!

ascund

08-10-2005, 07:57 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by steaver:
[QUOTE] Now the Bible tells us that faith without works is dead. (James 2:17,26). And yet, the "faith only" crowd insists that man is justified by faith apart from works of any kind.

In effect, the claim seems to be that man is justifed before God by a dead, workless faith, but that somehow, this dead, (yet saving) faith produces a living, fruitful, working faith, which results in the person's sanctification.
Lloyd here:
My response is ALWAYS context. You never respond to context. Instead, you chose to run to another sanctification verse and twist that into unholy support for water baptism.

You actually ignore both contexts of this verse.

The overarching context is James writing to believers. He urges them to provide works worthy of their standing in Christ. It is an error to make spiritual growth of faith + obedience sanctification a requirement of justification. We expect the baby to talk + walk sometime after birth. We don’t make the baby talk + walk as a requirement for birth.

The immediate context is James 2:23. Abraham was saved by faith (Gen. 15:6) twenty years before he offered up Isaac (Gen. 22; James 2:24). Romans 4 uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith (4:2-3,13) apart from any obedience and sacrament (4:4-12). The promise is voided by faith + obedience (4:14). Can God be any clearer? In 4:16, justification is by grace through faith. Justification was IMPUTED to Abraham (4:22) by passive faith; EVENT – not process.

James 2:23 with 24 shows the total picture. Justification by passive faith BEFORE GOD is the new birth; sanctification by active faith is spiritual growth. Believers, therefore, are righteous by works, just because they are righteous without any merit of, or without any respect to works, seeing that the righteousness of works depends on the righteousness of faith. These two must not be confused. Error forces the sanctification part of Abraham’s life to be a requirement for justification oblivious that Abraham was already justified. It is wrong to endorse a system that makes the baby prove itself before birth. Proof of life happens AFTER birth.

“Faith without works is dead” can only be used as a means for already justified believers to verify their justification BEFORE OTHERS. Faith and works cannot mix to produce or maintain justification before God (Rom. 4:14, 11:6; 1 Cor 1:17c). All faith + obedience verses fit into this harmony.

Originally posted by steaver:
No matter how many brothers show you the truth of James' message, you will choose to remain in error of it's teaching and therefore remain stuck in incorrect doctrine.

Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Faith to Faith to Faith from Noah to Abraham to Peter to Paul and on and on.Amen! Your own words in return are most appropriate. Isn't it curious that you use the word "impute" without understanding what it means.

What next verse will you run to without addressing context?
Lloyd

IAD

08-10-2005, 08:58 AM

Hey IAD

Thanks for the straight shot! Your comment. . .clearly reflects justification by faith alone followed by sanctification of works in service to our King. Thanks for this clarity!

Hey, thanks for the kind words, dude. I guess all those years of AWANA have paid off. :D

DHK

08-10-2005, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by ascund:

What next verse will you run to without addressing context?
Lloyd Usually it is James 2:24 without context: "and not by faith only," the only place in the Bible that says 'not' by faith alone. :rolleyes:
DHK

ascund

08-10-2005, 01:31 PM

Sigh :(

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ascund:
What next verse will you run to without addressing context? - Lloyd Originally posted by DHK:
Usually it is James 2:24 without context: "and not by faith only," the only place in the Bible that says 'not' by faith alone. :rolleyes: -DHK [/QUOTE]That hide and seek appeal is all too typical. On another forum, I've selected Rom 1:19-3:19 to emphasize the futility of a human-oriented obedience system. The conclusion of human ability is given in 3:19 where it is so convincingly clear that all are guilty that no one can give even one word in response to the awful charges.

All are guilty! Left to our resources - we all will fail and earn an eternity in hell for our rebellion.

How is it that bmerr, mman and others can recommend a system of human obedience that ends in death and yet hope to reach heaven?

bmerr, mman and others have a far to high opinion of human ability.

bmerr, mman and others have a far to low opinion of the consequences of sin.

Lloyd

steaver

08-10-2005, 09:09 PM

Brother Lloyd,

You have my post mixed up with bmmer's.

God Bless!

ascund

08-11-2005, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by steaver:
Brother Lloyd,

You have my post mixed up with bmmer's.

God Bless! Yikes! Where is my oft worn sackcloth? Plenty of ashes in the wood burner! And where is the well used "idiot mat" . . . . oh yeah, behind the door! . . .

Filthy egotistical sinner pleads forgiveness for repeated errors of ignorance, blissful stupidity, and egotistical mudslinging.

Lloyd

bmerr

08-11-2005, 09:38 AM

ascund,

Originally by ascund:

Filthy egotistical sinner pleads forgiveness for repeated errors of ignorance, blissful stupidity, and egotistical mudslinging.bmerr here. Admitting you have a problem is the first step. I'm proud of you. Now, on to repentance! smile.gif

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-11-2005, 10:09 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Now, on to repentance! smile.gif Thanks. Repentance is not for eternal life. neither John’s Gospel nor I John use the word repentance.

Poistively, throughout the entire Gospel proclamation, John presents a clear condition for receiving eternal life. That condition is expressed by the verb pisteuvw “believe.”

Negatively, John’s Gospel does not make repentance a requirement for salvation. There is not a single occurrence of either metanoevw (repent) or metavnoia (repentance) anywhere in John’s Gospel. Yet, John’s Gospel’s stated purpose is to tell unbelievers what to do in order that they might have eternal life (John 20:31). The apostle John carefully avoids making any reference to repentance. His silence is all the more noteworthy since he heard both John the Baptist and Jesus preach on the necessity of repentance. When these contexts are examined, John the Baptist and Jesus were exhorting national Israelites to return to their covenantal vows preparing the way for acceptance of Jesus as their Promised Messiah. A promise linked with Israel’s repentance leading to national restoration must not be converted into a requirement for Gentile salvation. John’s failure to mention repentance is not an argument from silence. If the express purpose of a book is to state the requirements of salvation and repentance is not mentioned, then it must be clear that this is not an oversight. It must also be clear that John did not think that repentance was a condition for eternal life. The same must be said about Paul. In Galatians, his apologetic defense of his gospel, he likewise never mentions repentance. Clearly, repentance is not a requirement for salvation.

We must understand that repentance has two definitions. I used repentance here as denying the need to repent over personal sins.

If you define repentance as a change of mind concerning Jesus Christ and His saving merits, then it is a synonym for faith.

Beware of the differences in definitions. Context rules! A word has no meaning by itself and has meaning only in a sentence. Do not match an illegitimate transfer of defintions.

As an example, consider the following three definitions of the word "run."

__1. I run a race.
__2. My nose is running.
__3. Let me run this idea past you.

If you took the definition of run from #1 and forced it upon either of the other two sentences, confusion and sillyness results. The same error can happen with the word "repent." This is probably why John avoided the word with it potential to be abused with the context of personal sins. That is why he choose believe without any encumbrances. Faith - alone!

BEWARE!
Lloyd

bmerr

08-11-2005, 10:14 AM

ascund,

bmerr here. In regard to this statement,

Originally by ascund:

But bmerr, the context is not justification. It is written to already saved saints. The context is justifying (as in vindicate or prove) their faith before others.Where do you get that Abraham was justified "before others" from the account of his offering Isaac? Was it doen before a live studio audience? Was there a grandstand full of onlookers that Abraham justified himself to? Was the ram in the thicket the "others" you speak of? Let's go back to Gen 22, and see who's in attendance.

22:3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

4 Then on the third day Abraham lifed up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offereing, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay hus son.

11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Now tell me, did God say this of Abraham 20 years before this moment, or was it here, after Abraham offered Isaac? The text says, "...now I know that thou fearest God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son...'

It was based on the obedient actions of Abraham that God knew Abraham feared Him.

Not at the point when Abraham was told to offer Isaac.

Not along the way to Mt. Moriah.

Not when Abraham left the young men with the ass.

Not when Abraham and Isaac got to the place God had told him of.

Not after Abraham built the altar.

Not when Isaac was laid upon the altar.

Not until Abraham had knife in hand, and hand raised to slay his son, did God know that Abraham feared Him.

This is the example given in the book of James, of which James (an inspired man) said that Abraham's faith was made perfect (complete) by his works.

As Paul pointed out, Abraham was not doing a deed of the law. Nor would anyone in their right mind place this in the class of "good", or "meritorious" works.

This was simply a work of obedience to the command of God. Oh, and nobody was there to watch, either. Nobody but God, anyway.

Your attempt to remove the meaning from James 2 is fruitless. Your knowledge of greek is only burying you deeper in error. Not that learning greek is a bad thing; it's not. But with all your greek learning, you still don't know the truth.

Stick to English. It's less confusing.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-11-2005, 10:26 AM

To All,

bmerr here. The original question has yet to be answered satisfactorily, or, Biblically. Will someone please describe the faith of the "faith only" doctrine? Does it work? Is it void of works? Is it alive or dead? Is it merely intellectual assent to the facts of Jesus, and of our sinfulness? Is it just feeling sorry for past misdeeds?

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-11-2005, 11:52 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Stick to English. It's less confusing.Gasp! Greek reveals so much that a translation cannot in any easy way duplicate. The Perfect TEnse is the best example.

Additionally, English hides the voice. One guy on this forum appealed to Rom 5:1 as a proof that an active faith that leads to justification. Ignorance of Greek and reliance only on English by itself leads to this sort of error.

But with respect to justification, using Greek it is easy to see that justification is active only with respect to God Himself and passive with respect to humans.

This easy Greek fact by itself demolishes process salvation where justification depends on sanctification (your view). Humans cannot actively contribute anything to the event of justification (my view). Hence we have the biblical word IMPUTE not earn or impart.

Really, it isn't Greek versus English. It is Christ-centered versus human-centered presuppositions.

But I understand that you could make such a cavalier statement since it is likely that you have not pursued this aspect of studying God's Word. I understand - but you are really really wrong.

Lloyd

billwald

08-11-2005, 01:07 PM

Is there a denomination of Christians who claim to have worked their way into a guaranteed salvation?

IAD

08-11-2005, 04:41 PM

The original question has yet to be answered satisfactorily, or, Biblically.

Did you not read my original post on page 1?

Frank

08-11-2005, 08:04 PM

Lloyd:
This article is from Winford Claiborne a Christian brother of mine. He is well versed in Greek. I do not know if he would consider himself a scholar. Personally, I believe humility would prevent him from making such a claim. His contention is the Osas doctrine is false. He uses the Greek to make his argument. While I admit the original languages can shed some light on passages. They also contain language we can not easily accomodate or understand. ie. middle passive voice.

Many of the translations in the King James Version and in other versions introduce Calvinism into the Bible. I could give you many examples, but one will have to suffice today. Luke records Peter's command to the Jewish people he addressed on Solomon's porch of the Jewish temple. "Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19). The Calvinists who translated the King James Version used the expression, "be converted" when it should be rendered "turn." That may not seem important, but I assure you it is very important. The Calvinists wanted people to believe that God does the turning for us. So they used the passive voice—"be converted." They should have used the active voice—"repent and turn." Most of the other versions I have in my study translate the Greek either "turn," "return" or "turn again." In his great set of books, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Seminary, 1930), Dr. A.T. Robertson, a professor in a Calvinist theological seminary, translates the Greek "turn again"—not "be converted" (volume 3, p. 45). The King James Version makes the same mistake every time the expression appears in the New Testament. I urge you to study carefully Matthew 13:15; Mark 4:12: Luke 22:32; John 12:40 and Acts 28:27. In every one of these verses the verb should be rendered "turn" or "turn again"—not "be converted."

I use the Greek because it helps me to understand many passages that have been misused to teach false doctrine. One of the most misunderstood and misused verses in the Bible is Matthew 16:19. Our Lord said to Peter: "And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Some religions interpret-.that verse somewhat as follows: Peter had the authority to bind and to loose. God was sitting up in heaven, figuratively speaking, and what he saw Peter bind and loose, he bound and loosed. That is close to what the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New Revised Standard Version and some other versions teach. There are two notable exceptions to that—Charles Williams' translation and Dr. Hugo McCord's translation. Charles Williams renders the Greek: "Whatever you forbid on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth must be whatever is already permitted in heaven." Dr. McCord translates the verse: "What you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and what you release on earth will have been released in heaven." Dr. A. T. Robertson says the verbs—bind and loose—are future perfect indicatives. That means the verbs outline a state of completion—"shall have been bound" and "shall have been loosed." Is our understanding of what Jesus said in this verse important? It shows that no one— absolutely no one—has a right to bind or to loose what God has not already bound and loosed. When I took Greek in college, this one example convinced me of the great importance of knowing the Greek of the New Testament.

In his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter used the expression, "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Hundreds of debates have been conducted on the meaning of the term. The Greek of the verse should end the debate once for all. Why would I make such an observation? The exact same expression appears in Matthew's account of Christ's institution of the Lord's supper. Jesus informed his disciples: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mt. 26:28). Did Jesus shed his blood in order that our sins may be forgiven or because they were already forgiven? If our sins were already forgiven, it was cruel for Christ to have to shed his blood. So what does "for the remission of sins" mean in reference to baptism? It means we must be baptized in order to have our sins remitted. Does one have to know the Greek in order to come to that conclusion? No, but knowing that the Greek is the same in both passages reinforces the significance of the English translation.

The apostle John wrote -five New Testament books—John, 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation. The tenses of the verbs are very significant in all of John's writings. The word "tense" refers to the time element in a verb. We speak of past, present and future tenses. The tenses of verbs are important in any language, but they are especially significant in the .Greek. I shall use a number of examples from 1 John. The following verse is a very comforting and inspiring message to Christians. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). All the verbs in this sentence are in the present tense. Present tense in the Greek involves continuous action. With that simple explanation, please listen to a literal translation of the Greek. "If we continually walk in the light, as he is in the light, we continually have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son continually cleanses us from all sin." The literal translation may seem a little awkward, but it shows conclusively that no one is saved by grace alone. If we have to continually walk in the light as Christ is in the light in order to receive the continual cleansing of our sins, we are not saved by grace alone. Charles Williams renders the verse: "But if we continue to walk in the light, just as he is in the light, we have an unbroken fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son continues to cleanse us from all sin."

The apostle John emphasizes the absolute necessity of keeping God's commandments. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says, I know him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keeps his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him" (1 John 2:3-5). According to Dr. A. T. Robertson's scholarly set of books, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1933), every one of the verbs in these verses, except the verb "perfected," is in the present tense (volume 6, pp. 210-211). That means all of the present tense verbs involve continuous action. -Charles Williams translates those verses as follows: "By this we can be sure that we know Him—if we practice obedience to His commandments. Whoever says, 'I know him,' but does not practice obedience to His commands is a liar, and there is no truth in his heart; but whoever practices obedience to His message really has a perfect love of God in his heart." These verses are absolutely devastating to the Calvinistic doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Anyone who thinks he can prove otherwise is hereby challenged to do so.

For years our Calvinist friends have attempted to prove from 1 John 3:6-10 that a child of God cannot fall from grace. Please listen to these verses. "Whosoever abides in him sins not: whosoever sins has not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he who does not do righteousness is not righteous, even as he is righteous. He who commits sin is of the devil: for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin: for the seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not do righteousness is not of God, neither he who does not love his brother."

The present tense verbs in this passage make it impossible for the Calvinists to use this passage to prove the doctrine of "once in grace, always in grace." So I shall read the passage with due recognition of the tenses of the verbs. "Whosoever keeps on abiding in him does not practice sin: whosoever keeps on sinning has not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man keep on deceiving you: he who practices righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who keeps on committing sin is of the devil: for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God does not practice sinning; for his seed remains in him, and he cannot practice sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifested, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, neither he who does not continually love his brother."

While it is vital to study the tenses of the verbs in this passage, the purpose of the passage is not to refute the Calvinistic doctrine of "once saved, always saved." The Holy Spirit wanted Christians to know that they must continually practice God's will. We are saved from our alien sins when we believe the gospel and obey it from the heart (Rom. 6:17-18), but we must continue to practice righteousness. Surely no one believes God will save us eternally if we do not practice righteousness or maintain holiness, or do they? The inexplicable answer is "Yes." Ron Rhodes's book, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), includes the heading, "Maintaining Holiness Is Not a Condition of Salvation" (pp. 274-275). These are Dr. Rhodes' exact words: "The view that one must maintain holiness to sustain one's salvation goes against God's gospel of grace as clearly delineated in scripture, for example Eph. 2:8-9" (pp. 274-275). Dr. Rhodes argues that "a life of holiness is important, but it follows salvation; it does not cause it" (p. 275).

I wonder if Dr. Rhodes has ever read Hebrews 12:14. The author of Hebrews demands of his readers: "Seek peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." Charles Williams takes the tenses of the verbs into consideration in his translation of that verse. "Continue to live in peace with everybody and strive for that consecration without which no man can see the Lord." How can a scholar, such as Dr. Ron Rhodes, overlook the tense of the verb in Hebrews 12:14? Is it because he has committed himself to a defense of Calvinism, even if it means twisting scripture to do it? But one does not have to know the tense of the verb to understand that Dr. Rhodes has missed the teaching of this and similar verses.

Frank

08-11-2005, 08:21 PM

Lloyd:
The passive voice does not preclude our active participation. For example, the boy will undergo baptism tomorrow. While it appears to be passive, the idea is the boy will submit to the riutal and allow someone to immerse him. My contention is not that God does the justifying with me meriting the justification, only that man responds to the work of the cross through is submission in obedience of faith.ie. The boy will undergo baptism tomorrow. By the way, this simple sentence was provided by C.W Conrad of Washington University discussing passive, middle passive, active voices in Greek. My post on Romans 5:1,2 was in harmony with the rest of the scriptures posted. Gal. 3:26,27.You are trying so hard to stay out of the right hand ditch; you are falling into the left hand ditch.

steaver

08-12-2005, 07:44 AM

Many of the translations in the King James Version and in other versions introduce Calvinism into the Bible. That is interesting, I never heard this before. Can you point me to some supportive writings by the KJV translators that conclude they were Calvinist?

Thank You! God Bless!

ascund

08-12-2005, 09:22 AM

Greetings Frank

You pose a worthy question.
Originally posted by Frank:
The passive voice does not preclude our active participation. For example, the boy will undergo baptism tomorrow. While it appears to be passive, the idea is the boy will submit to the riutal and allow someone to immerse him. While it is true that the person being baptised in water is a willing passive participant, I have the following objections.

First, the boy actively seeks the water baptism and is only passive during a small part of the ceremony.

Second, water baptism requires HUMAN HANDS. Saving baptism is done by the operation of God without human hands (Col. 2:11-12).

Third, baptism into Christ is the activity of God's Spirit alone (I Cor 12:13). You are confusing spiritual baptism with water baptism. They are NOT synonyms.

Fourth, if you can see the baptism, then know for certain that it is only temporal and not eternal (2 Cor 4:18).

Fifth, why should my eternal life depend on another person's faithfulness? The boy who needed baptism depended on the faithfulness of another person, a supply of water be it a tank, pond or stream, and time to orchestrate these events. What about the fox hole conversion? Seriously, what about it! Is this a special dispensation of grace on God's part? Or will you condemn this believer to hell?

Your question was indeed worthy but alas - far short of the biblical teaching of grace, mercy and redemption. Water baptism has no part in the gospel message. Instead, it is part of the post gospel message of sanctification. Will you not now see that justification is in parallel with - yet distinct from - sanctification?

Shālôm
Lloyd

ascund

08-12-2005, 10:05 AM

Greetings Frank

Your referenced writing certainly is scholarly. The presentation of the Greek in Matthew 16:19 is accurate. Alas - I take exceptions to the section on tense. Action is a better way to understand the tense. The present tense can refer to either a continuous action, a snapshot of action, some timeless gnomic truth, or a perfective enduring action. Past/present/future is what is taught to first year students. You can't drop the whole load at once. Action is a refinement taught to second year students (However, Mounce includes this in his first year text). Your reference to I John 1:7 could also be correctly translated as an overarching gnomic description of one's lifewalk. Thus, particular sins are not the focus. This puts a vital distinction between the cleansing of 1:7 and the cleansing of 1:9. Why would John speak twice of the same cleansing? A continuous present might be right - but so also might a gnomic or perfective present. It is certainly wrong to translate every present as a continuous present.

I take vigorous exception to the following:

Originally posted by Frank:
In his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter used the expression, "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Hundreds of debates have been conducted on the meaning of the term. The Greek of the verse should end the debate once for all. Why would I make such an observation? The exact same expression appears in Matthew's account of Christ's institution of the Lord's supper. Jesus informed his disciples: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mt. 26:28). Did Jesus shed his blood in order that our sins may be forgiven or because they were already forgiven? If our sins were already forgiven, it was cruel for Christ to have to shed his blood. So what does "for the remission of sins" mean in reference to baptism? It means we must be baptized in order to have our sins remitted. Does one have to know the Greek in order to come to that conclusion? No, but knowing that the Greek is the same in both passages reinforces the significance of the English translation.These verses have two different contexts. It is violently wrong to take the definition of a word from one context and thrust it upon the same word in another context.

Consider these two sentences.
1. I run a race.
2. My nose is running.

It is violently wrong to take the definition of the word "run" from sentence 1 and thrust it upon the word "run" in sentence 2.

This is the error of your presentation of this section. The context of Matt 26 is for the entire world in general. The context of Acts 2 is national Israel alone. Matt 26 requires baptism as a sign of faith in the risen Jesus. Acts 2 requires national Israelites to be baptised as a prelude to national acceptance of the rejected Jesus before judgment falls on that "untoward generation."

It is violently wrong to force a concept point designed for national Israel upon Gentiles. It is a most serious linguistics violation to assume that "remission of sins" means the same thing in these two dramatically different contexts. Context rules!

The same approach can be used on 1 John 3:6-10. But this post is already to long.

Peace (a poor substitute for shālôm)
Lloyd

Claudia_T

08-13-2005, 10:17 PM

Dear ascund,

God commands us to do certain things. If we are ABLE to do it then He expect us to do it. If we are incapable of doing it then He does not expect us to do something we are unable to do.

2Cor:8:12: For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

Because some may be unable to be baptised or t do other things that God commands, such as the thief on the cross, is no excuse for those who are ABLE to do it.

bmerr

08-13-2005, 10:20 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. This is my second time writing this (I hit the escape key by accident). Suffice it to say that you and Frank make me feel quite uneducated. That's okay, though. I'm not formally educated.

I would like to adress the idea you presented about Acts 2 being only for national Israel. In doing so, I'll use two approaches: common sense, and textual evidence.

First, an appeal to common sense. I'm not the smartest guy around, but it just doesn't seem logical to me, that in Acts 2, the beginnning of the preaching of the gospel of Christ, the establishment of the kingdom, the church, which was to include "all nations", and not just Jews, that God would inspire Peter to preach a message that only applied to Jews.

It seems that it would lead to confusion for those present who may have rejected the message at first, but then chose to respond at a later date. They would have been given different instructions than they had heard when first they heard the gospel. Can you see where I'm coming from? Is my common sense approach making sense?

Second, there is textual evidence which shows that there were Gentiles present to hear Peter's preaching. Acts 2:10 tells us of "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes". Why mention Jews separately if everyone there was a Jew?

The term "stranger" is a common OT word for Gentiles (ie. Ex 12:43). Present at Pentecost of Acts 2 were "strangers of Rome". Gentiles.

Also, a proselyte was simply a Gentile who had chosen to bring himself under the Mosaic Law. Even in so doing, he was never counted as a "full Jew". The Ethiopian eunuch was such a one. Of course his status as a eunuch disqualified him, too (Deut 23:1). Maybe he's not such a good example...

Anyway, the promise of God spoken through Peter was "...Unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off..."

Those who were "afar off" were Gentiles. Eph 2:12-19 makes several references to Gentiles: "aliens", "strangers", "ye who were sometimes far off", "you which were afar off", "strangers", and "foreigners".

I know the "to the Jews only" thing is helplful to your position, but it's not correct.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-13-2005, 11:18 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
I would like to adress the idea you presented about Acts 2 being only for national Israel. In doing so, I'll use two approaches: common sense, and textual evidence.

First, an appeal to common sense. I'm not the smartest guy around, but it just doesn't seem logical to me, that in Acts 2, the beginnning of the preaching of the gospel of Christ, the establishment of the kingdom, the church, which was to include "all nations", and not just Jews, that God would inspire Peter to preach a message that only applied to Jews.

... Is my common sense approach making sense?Yes. I've wondered that myself - in fact, am still amazed. But recall that these same Jews had botched common sense preaching and crucified their Messiah. Even the apostles had not yet gotten into the mode of being an apostles. This is the first time they've done anything but cower in fear. They haven't yet got around to their own - much less the world.

Second, there is textual evidence which shows that there were Gentiles present to hear Peter's preaching. Acts 2:10 tells us of "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes". Why mention Jews separately if everyone there was a Jew?Not everyone there was a full fledged Jew. YOu forget that these Jews are very egotistical and have a lot of sinful national pride. This pride infects the apostle too. In Acts 9, Paul was commissioned to be the apostle to the Gentiles. In Acts 10, Peter cracked the "gentile barrier" - but needed a special divine dream to slap the national pride out of him. Thus, those so-called gentiles in Acts 2 were "mere" Jewish prosyletes. The distinction is made because they were still secondary Jewish citizens.

Lloyd

bmerr

08-14-2005, 05:23 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. All the stuff about the nationalistic pride of the Jews, even the fact that the apostles were affected by it; I agree totally. As you pointed out, Peter needed the "sheet vision" in triplicate before he started to understand that the gospel was for the Gentiles, too.

Even upon his arrival at the house of Cornelius, it took his hosts' speaking in tongues to fully convince him enough to say, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). Even the apostles were merely men, after all.

[Just a passing thought: Did you realize that not one of the apostles believed that Jesus had risen from the dead the first time they were told about it?]

And though it may be true that the apostles had not yet "gotten used to their roles" as apostles, we must remember that in Acts 2, Peter spoke by inspiration (Acts 2:4). The words he uttered did not originate in his mind, but in the mind of God. Peter was merely the voicebox, if you will.

Those not of Jewish descent were included in Peter's opening line, "Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem" (2:14).

And, as I mentioned earlier, the promise was extended, not only to national Israel, but to "them that are afar off", which is a Gentile reference, unless I'm mistaken.

My conclusion is still that the gospel preached by Peter in Acts 2 was the same gospel preached to Paul at his conversion, which he also preached to the Gentiles for the remainder of his days.

Remember when Paul went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus (Gal 2)? In verse 2, Paul said he "...communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain."

Then for a few verses he speaks of the effort to have Titus circumcised, which failed.

Picking up in 2:6, he says that those who seemed to be somewhat (probably Peter, James, and John), "...in conference added nothing to me."

If Paul were preaching salvation by "faith alone" to the Gentiles, and Peter and the eleven had ben preaching a gospel that included baptism, then they would have added something to what Paul was preaching.

If we jump down to 2:9, Paul says, "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace (Tit 2:11-12?) that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

That "fellowship' thing is a big deal. It was John (one of those mentioned), who wrote, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, (the doctrine of Christ) receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (2 John 10).

John would not have given Paul the right hand of fellowship if Paul were preaching something other than what he, Peter, and the rest of the eleven had been given to preach.

Lloyd, I have a lot of respect for your learning, and your manner (for the most part) toward me and others thus far in our discussions. But I think you've missed it on the "for the Jews only" idea for Acts 2. I hope I have made some progress in demonstrating that the invitation in Acts 2 is still applicable today.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-14-2005, 06:56 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Those not of Jewish descent were included in Peter's opening line, "Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem" (2:14).Well, yes - - - but I already showed (and you agreed) that these were prosylites. The thrust of the context is Jews and Jews only.

Recall, Paul won't be commissioned to the Gentiles until chapter 9. Peter doesn't make it to Cornelius until chapter 10.

So the thrust of these first few chapters is the historic failure of the apostles to go to the Gentiles. Acts 2 is in the midst of Jewish only context.

Even in Acts 1:6, the disciples asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?" In Acts 3:19, Peter’s second sermon, he preaches, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the TIMES OF REFRESHING shall come from the presence of the Lord."

If Peter is looking for the restoration of national Israel BEFORE and AFTER Acts 2, then he is IN Acts 2. With proper context in mind Peter first shows his fellow countrymen that they have crucified their Messiah (2:23). Jesus rose from the dead, will return, and execute Messianic vengeance upon His enemies (2:35; Psa 110:1-2; Isa 61:1-2;l; Jer 46:10). He reminds them that they are the ones who crucified the One (2:36) Who is both “Lord and Christ." These quips are only applicable to rebellious national Israel.

So, repent and be baptized (2:38). Save yourselves “from this untoward generation” (2:40). Who is the UNTOWARD GENERATION if it isn't Israel? Context undermines your appeal to a generic gospel of water baptism. Hence while the exhortation to water baptism was peculiar to Israelites still needing to receive their national Messiah. We Gentiles don't have this right.

Originally posted by bmerr:
If we jump down to Gal 2:9, Paul says, "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace (Tit 2:11-12?) that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

That "fellowship' thing is a big deal. It was John (one of those mentioned), who wrote, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, (the doctrine of Christ) receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (2 John 10).

John would not have given Paul the right hand of fellowship if Paul were preaching something other than what he, Peter, and the rest of the eleven had been given to preach.I agree! But what does context tell us about Paul's message that was not changed by "these pillars?"

Gal 2:16a: not justified by works.
Gal 2:16b: justified by faith. Even the testimony of the disciples was that they were saved by believing in Jesus Christ - no mention of water baptism but a flat denial of works.

Gal 2:20: I live by the faith of the Son of God. Where in here is any mention of water baptism. Check the whole book!

Then in Gal 3:3 Paul shows that salvation began by the Spirit and should continue by the Spirit. This denies works and denies water baptism.

In Gal 3:5 he specifically mentions the HEARING of faith. This pointedly omits obedience to anything - especially water baptism.

Gal 3:11 justified by faith.

Gal 3:14 we receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Gal 3:22 all is condemned to sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Where is water baptism?

Gal 3:24 justified by faith.

Over and over it is by faith alone without reference to water baptism and a specific denial of obedience.

I must reject any move that converts national Israel's message to any/every Gentile. I must affirm that Paul's message was the same message as given by Peter: justification by faith without obedience and no mention of water baptism.

The sheer weight of this message must be noted.

I also ask that you would eventually respond to Isaiah 64:6 and its ramifications. I have stated several times that this is my biggest theological plank.

Shalom
LLoyd

bmerr

08-15-2005, 09:32 PM

Briguy,

bmerr here. This excerpt is from the "Baptism - Why?" thread, I think, but since this is the "faith only" thread, I thought I'd ask you about it here.

Either the rulers believed in the same sense that the demons believe, thus they would not have a saving belief...You were responding to my question on John 12:42, and this statement prompted me to ask, What is the difference between "faith only" (belief apart from works of any kind), and the kind of faith that demons have?

It gets back to the dead faith vs. prefected faith thing.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-15-2005, 10:26 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Your rebuttal still leaves Peter and the eleven preaching one gospel to the Jews and another to the Gentiles, though, doesn't it?

There is but one gospel for every creature in all nations in all the world.

I'd say that it's possible that Peter was still hoping for a literal, earthly kingdom of which Jesus would be King. I'm sure that with everything going on, there were lots of wrong expectations in the minds of many. In that respect, Peters' asking about the kingdom in Acts 1 isn't all that surprising.

But Christ's kingdom turned out to be one that Peter had the keys to (Matt 16:19), and it came on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

I'd say that the "times of refreshing" in Acts 3:19 is parallel with the "gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 2:38. Both are in the context of an invitation following the presentation of the gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Repent (1), and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (2), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.(3)

Acts 3:19 - Repent ye therefore (1), and be converted, that your sins be blotted out (2), when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. (3)

I'm having a hard time understanding how you linked Acts 3:19 with Acts 1:6, and missed the correlation it has with Acts 2:38.

My thinking concerning proselytes is that they were just Gentiles who had changed their religion. They were still Gentiles. "Second-class Jews", I think was how you termed them.

And there is still the fact that the promise was not just to the Jews present who had been active participants in the Lord's crucifixion (which you identified as the "untoward generation"), but also to their children, and to all that were afar off, which is, if I'm not mistaken, a Gentile reference.

Jesus will return to execute vengeance on His enemies when He comes again (2 Thes 1:7-10). This vengeance will affect more than just the Jews who had demanded the death of Christ. My sins are just as much responsible as theirs for the shedding of Jesus' blood, and I wasn't even there.

The Jews present in Acts 2 had no more need of the gospel than you or I. The instruction they received is the same instruction given to Paul, which he gave to the Gentiles.

If your look at Galatians had included the context of the book, you'd have found baptism as it relates to faith in the 3rd chapter.

Gal 2:16 speaks of the works of the law. This is significant due to the error into which Peter had fallen concerning his eating or not eating with the Gentiles, depending on who they had for company at dinner. It is not an exclusion of baptism.

When you see the word "faith", be careful not to understand it to mean "faith only". "Only" isn't there for a reason. These verses don't mention anything about repentance or confession, either, but nobody tries to get rid of them.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-15-2005, 10:47 PM

greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Your rebuttal still leaves Peter and the eleven preaching one gospel to the Jews and another to the Gentiles, though, doesn't it?

There is but one gospel for every creature in all nations in all the world.Not at all. Peter preached baptism for the remission of national sins. It is not the gospel message per se. Now people can get saved with even a secondary message when they realize their huge error in killing their own Messiah. But His message was for national repentance. This is not the gospel.

So - Yes! There is but one Gospel. It is the gospel illustrated through the murmuring Israelites and the brazen serpant. Look and live. He who believes shall be saved. No water associated with the serpant. No water associated with believe either.

Just one gospel. Peter preached the gospel - but not in Acts 1, 2, or 3.

Lloyd

bmerr

08-15-2005, 10:52 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. About Is 64:6. Didn't mean to skip it, I just forgot. No slight intended.

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind have taken us away."

I think the key to this verse is in recognizing that it is our righteousnesses that are as filthy rags. Like in Tit 3:5, "...not by works of righteousness that we have done..."

The things referred to, IMO, are the "good works" that men do to try and make themselves acceptable to God. They try to come up with their own plans and ideas as to what will "even the scales", or even tip them in their favor, so that God will overlook their sins. All such efforts are fruitless, and of no avail, except for temporarily soothing the conscience of the ignorant.

If we back up one verse to Is 64:5, we find that "[God] meeteth him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved."

It brings to mind Acts 10:35, where Peter says, "But in every nation, he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him."

I understand this to mean that God will meet with those who remember Him in His ways.
Isaiah seems to say, "You're angry with us for we have sinned, but in thy ways is continuance, and we shall be saved if we return to them. But all of our ways of trying to please you are like filthy rags, and we're fading away like a leaf, because our sins have removed us from You."

I really don't like paraphrases, as a rule, since they often change the meaning of the text. I hope I have not done the same thing in my attempt at it. Anyway, that's my understanding of Is 64:6 at this time. I'm open for correction, if needed, though.

In conclusion, while our righteousness may indeed be as filthy rags, there is a righteousness that man must work to be accepted by God, that is, His righteousness, which is defined as all of His commandments (Ps 119:162).

How'd I do?

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-15-2005, 10:57 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Would you say that Peter was disobedient to the great commission? He was commanded to preach the gospel, not national repentance to Israel, wasn't he?

Again, I think the brasen serpent illustration was more a reference to the type of death Christ would suffer than a "look and live" message.

Although, it was the Israelites obedience to the command to look and live that provided their healing, not merely their belief that it had been commanded.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-15-2005, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:

bmerr here. Would you say that Peter was disobedient to the great commission? He was commanded to preach the gospel, not national repentance to Israel, wasn't he?
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Would you say that Paul was disobedient to the Great Commission??

ascund

08-16-2005, 07:33 AM

Greetings

How'd I do?You stick to your process salvation theology pretty good! Nice well written post with that assumption.

I especially liked your comment:
(some hope that good works will) even tip them in their favor, so that God will overlook their sins. All such efforts are fruitless, and of no avail, except for temporarily soothing the conscience of the ignorant.So many of your view hope that their good works will somehow outweight their bad and they will "squeeze" into heaven. Congrats! This is a big step away from the darkness.

But you yet haven't got it completely straight for you now turn to Acts 10:35 and contradict yourself ...

Originally posted by bmerr:
"But in every nation, he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him."

while our righteousness may indeed be as filthy rags, there is a righteousness that man must work to be accepted by God, that is, His righteousness, which is defined as all of His commandments (Ps 119:162).Here, you show that you are still a works-in-process theologian.

Why is it that I can articulate your view - but you can't mine?

YOU HOLD that one receives initial justification by faith. The believer receives the indwelling Spirit and infused grace to conform unto the image of Jesus Christ. When the believer achieves a certain (undefined) level of perfection, God will reward that soul with final justification. Salvation depends on both justification and a process of sanctification.

I HOLD that one is justified by faith (as do you). However, justification is total and complete at that moment. The believer is immersed into Christ, sealed by God's Spirit, translated into the heavenlies, indwelt by God's Spirit, and equipped with all spiritual gifts. There is nothing more to be done with respect to justification. Justification opens the door to sanctification. Sanctification is a process of conforming the beleiver into the image of Jesus Christ. The believer receives rewards for this process. Sanctification depends on justification.

So when you say there is a righteousness that man must work to be accepted by Godyou see this as the process of sanctification that leads to final justification.

Since I hold that justification is complete at the moment of faith, I see your blending of justification and sanctification as a gross error. Works are part of sanctification (as you even should admit). For me sanctification leads only to rewards because justification is primal. For you, since sanctification is primal, works leads to final justification.

I don't expect you at this point to believe my system. But it would be nice if you could articulate it as I do yours.

There is no work that a man can do to be acceptable with God. Galatians is full of passages that declare justification APART FROM WORKS. Gal 2:16; 3:2-5, 11, 5:4

Do you remember my 100% survey of the word justify? Should I pull that out again?? No where is justification linked with works. It is always and solely linked to faith in Christ.

With all those words, can you not now see Acts 10:35? He that feareth [God] and worketh righteousness, is accepted of himHe that feareth [God] is already justified. The "worketh righteousness" is sanctification. You blend them together. I hold them distinct.

Your blending puts human works on par with Christ's Cross. My distinction only depends on Christ. That quite a difference!

Shalom
Lloyd

mman

08-18-2005, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bmerr:

bmerr here. Would you say that Peter was disobedient to the great commission? He was commanded to preach the gospel, not national repentance to Israel, wasn't he?
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Would you say that Paul was disobedient to the Great Commission?? [/QUOTE]Did Paul baptize? Yes, but not many. Were the Corinthians baptized? Yes (Acts 18:8)

Some people were claiming to be followers of Paul. Paul list two conditions that would make them followers or belonging to Paul. 1) Paul would have to be crucified for them. 2) They would have to be baptized in his name or by his authority.

Paul was not crucified for them but Jesus was. They were not baptized in Paul's name, but in the name of Jesus. Therefore, they belonged to Jesus not Paul.

That is why Paul was glad that he had not baptized more of them, because the understood the importance of baptism.

Can you not see the emphasis Paul is placing on baptism?

The Corithians had been baptized. The gospel had been preached to them and they had been baptized. Not a very good argument for baptism not being part of the gospel.

Others could do the baptizing as well as Paul, but not necessarily the preaching. Paul's commission was to preach.

But notice something very important about Paul’s words that actually demonstrate the necessity of baptism:

To re-state, according to verse 13, in order to be called after Christ, at least two things must happen:

1.) Christ must die for that person (which He did)

2.) That person must be baptized into the name of Christ!

If one has not been baptized into Christ, how can they rightfully call themselves a Christian or one who belongs or is a follower of Christ, according to this Chapter?

Even though Paul may have only baptized a few of the Corinthians himself, personally, they ALL were baptized!

You see, I Cor 1 is a strong argument for the necessity of baptism, not an argument against it.

bmerr

08-18-2005, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by ascund:

So many of your view hope that their good works will somehow outweight their bad and they will "squeeze" into heaven. Congrats! This is a big step away from the darkness.

But you yet haven't got it completely straight for you now turn to Acts 10:35 and contradict yourself ...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bmerr:
"But in every nation, he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him."

while our righteousness may indeed be as filthy rags, there is a righteousness that man must work to be accepted by God, that is, His righteousness, which is defined as all of His commandments (Ps 119:172).Here, you show that you are still a works-in-process theologian.

Why is it that I can articulate your view - but you can't mine?

YOU HOLD that one receives initial justification by faith. The believer receives the indwelling Spirit and infused grace to conform unto the image of Jesus Christ. When the believer achieves a certain (undefined) level of perfection, God will reward that soul with final justification. Salvation depends on both justification and a process of sanctification.[/QUOTE]Lloyd,

bmerr here. There you go again, misrepresenting folks. While I can appreciate your education, I resent your attempt at mind reading! You don't know as much as you think you know, Lloyd!

The Bible states outright that man is justified by works, and not by faith only (James 2:24).

Paul states repeatedly that man is not justified by the "works of the law" (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16; etc).

In Titus 3:5, he says that we are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done, which is in line with Is 64:6, "...all our righteousnessess are as filthy rags..."

Peter (another inspired writer) states that he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him (Acts 10:35).

I didn't write this stuff, I'm just reading it.

We can deduce that the righteousness that man must work (which Peter and James refer to) is not good things that man comes up with, which would be our rightesousness (Is 64:6, Tit 3:5), and it's not keeping the Mosaic law (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16), so what is it?

Psalms 119:172 (not 119:162, as in my earlier typo) tells us that all of God's commandments are righteousness.

It is a fact that there were commandments from God that man was to obey before the Law was given on Mt. Sinai. Adam and Eve were told to refrain from eating from the forbidden tree. Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice because he did it in accordance with God's word (Heb 11:4). Noah built the ark by faith, or in accordance with God's command. Murder was a sin LONG before "Thou shalt not kill" sounded from the firey mountain (Ex 20:13).

Men such as Noah and Abraham were justified, or declared righteous, by God because they obeyed the commandments of God. Their faith was made perfect by their works.

What if they had believed that God had spoken, and even believed what He had said, but did not obey? What good would their faith be? How would it be known?

I HOLD that one is justified by faith (as do you).No, you hold, if I understand you correctly, that one is justified by "faith only", which I do not find written in the Bible, and therefore, reject as false doctrine.

So when you say <blockquote>quote:<hr />there is a righteousness that man must work to be accepted by Godyou see this as the process of sanctification that leads to final justification.[/QUOTE]No, I simply see it as what is written in the Scriptures. I just don't try to argue it away.

I don't expect you at this point to believe my system. But it would be nice if you could articulate it as I do yours.Thus, the starting of this thread. What kind of faith do you say it is that saves a man? Is it a non-working faith, which the Bible says is dead, or is it a faith accompanied by appropriate works (not works of the law, and not meritorious works, but obedience), which the Bible says justifies man?

There is no work that a man can do to be acceptable with God. Galatians is full of passages that declare justification APART FROM WORKS. Gal 2:16; 3:2-5, 11, 5:4First off, the Bible says that's not true (Acts 10:35). Secondly, every one of these verses speaks of the works of the law, which we already agree does not justify.

Do you remember my 100% survey of the word justify? Should I pull that out again?? No where is justification linked with works. It is always and solely linked to faith in Christ.Again, what kind of faith in Christ?

With all those words, can you not now see Acts 10:35? <blockquote>quote:<hr />He that feareth [God] and worketh righteousness, is accepted of himHe that feareth [God] is already justified. The "worketh righteousness" is sanctification.[/QUOTE]The text does not say that, though. You seem to be twisting the text to make it say what you want it to.

You blend them together. I hold them distinct.Lloyd, I think you may be the one in error for trying to separate them. The Bible seems to keep them together.

Your blending puts human works on par with Christ's Cross. My distinction only depends on Christ. That quite a difference!Our obedience is in keeping with the pattern, or example left for us by Christ. How can one expect to be saved by Christ, if his faith is not obedient as Christ's faith was? He is the author of eternal salvation to all that obey Him (Heb 5:8, 9).

Belief is to obedience as unbelief is to disobedience. Look at 1 Pet 2:7:

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is become the head of the corner.

Can you see how "believe" and "disobedient" are presented as opposites? To believe is to obey. That's so simple, even I can figure it out.

I've heard of some who have been "educated beyond their common sense". I hope you are not of this number.

In Christ,

bmerr

Doubting Thomas

08-18-2005, 02:35 PM

Bmerr,

Good post.

DT

DHK

08-18-2005, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by mman:

Even though Paul may have only baptized a few of the Corinthians himself, personally, they ALL were baptized!But not by the hand of Paul. Paul's commission was clearly not to baptize. It was to preach the gospel, of which baptism is not part of, and clearly has nothing to do with salvation. Paul makes that clear. Christ sent him to preach the gospel that saves, not to baptize. Baptism doesn't save, has no part in salvation.

[b] You see, I Cor 1 is a strong argument for the necessity of baptism, not an argument against it. Only in your imagination. Christ sent Paul not to baptize. Why? He sent him to preach the gospel. This did not just apply to the Corinthians, but everywhere he went. This was the commission that Christ gave him throughout his entire life. Why? Because baptism is not and never was part of salvation. Christ sent him to preach the gospel of which baptism is not a part of. If you deny this you deny the Word of God. The Scriptures remain clear and plain; how can you deny them?

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
DHK

Doubting Thomas

08-18-2005, 04:07 PM

Paul's mission was indeed to preach the gospel not to necessarily baptize folks himself. However, it doesn't logically follow from his statement that baptism is therefore not part of the salvation process or part of the gospel message itself. (In fact, it was clear in the NT that the gospel message included the command to be baptized for the remission of sins.) All his statement meant was that he was busy preaching--others could do the actual baptizing.

mman

08-18-2005, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
[b]

Even though Paul may have only baptized a few of the Corinthians himself, personally, they ALL were baptized!But not by the hand of Paul. Paul's commission was clearly not to baptize. It was to preach the gospel, of which baptism is not part of, and clearly has nothing to do with salvation. Paul makes that clear. Christ sent him to preach the gospel that saves, not to baptize. Baptism doesn't save, has no part in salvation.

You see, I Cor 1 is a strong argument for the necessity of baptism, not an argument against it. Only in your imagination. Christ sent Paul not to baptize. Why? He sent him to preach the gospel. This did not just apply to the Corinthians, but everywhere he went. This was the commission that Christ gave him throughout his entire life. Why? Because baptism is not and never was part of salvation. Christ sent him to preach the gospel of which baptism is not a part of. If you deny this you deny the Word of God. The Scriptures remain clear and plain; how can you deny them?

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
DHK [/QUOTE]But Paul did baptize! Was that contrary to the message of the gospel? Why were the Corinthians baptized? They had heard the gospel that Paul preached and were baptized. Certainly you understand that Paul was an inspired apostle and only he could preach like he did, yet others could baptize those that responded to the gospel.

Re-read it for what it says.

To re-state, according to verse 13, in order to belong to Christ, at least two things must happen:

1.) Christ must die for that person (which He did)

2.) That person must be baptized into the name of Christ!

If one has not been baptized into Christ, how can they rightfully call themselves a Christian or one who belongs to or is a follower of Christ, according to this Chapter?

Even though Paul may have only baptized a few of the Corinthians himself, personally, they ALL were baptized!

I Cor 1:13 ...Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17For 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.

Why was Paul glad that he had not baptized more? Because he didn't want any of them to say that they were baptized in the name of Paul or that they belonged to Paul. This clearly shows the importance of baptism. If baptism were unimportant, what would it have mattered who baptized them? They would have placed no significance on their baptism. Yet, they did understand the importance of baptism. Again, what would it take to belong to Christ? Christ would have to be crucified for you and you would have to be baptized in His name. Simple.

DHK

08-18-2005, 07:36 PM

Mman,
You are really stretching the truth, and grasping for straws.
Read the Scripture: And tell me if you believe it or not:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

What was Paul's commisstion.

What was not Paul's commission.

bmerr

08-18-2005, 10:59 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. Was Paul being disobedient to Christ when he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas?

If baptism is not part of the gospel, then why would Paul have baptized anyone at all?

Why was it that wherever Paul went, people got baptized, if he was preaching a gospel that didn't require baptism?

What kind of faith did those who heard Paul preach need to have in order to be saved?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-19-2005, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:

If baptism is not part of the gospel, then why would Paul have baptized anyone at all?

In Christ,

bmerr Your argument is with God, not with me.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I didn't write the Bible, the Holy Spirit of God did.

Do you believe this verse or not?
DHK

bmerr

08-19-2005, 12:52 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. I do believe this verse. I understand it, too. I do not have to try and find a way to reconcile the fact that Paul was not sent to baptize, with the fact that he did baptize.

I understand that Paul could preach the gospel of Christ, which includes the command to be baptized for the remission of sins, he could assist a few people in obeying this command, and he could get back to preaching while the people he had assisted, assisted other people in being baptized.

The questions to you remain unanswered. You can answer them, or ignore them. I'm not mad at you either way.

In Christ,

bmerr

riverm

08-19-2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
Mman,
You are really stretching the truth, and grasping for straws.
Read the Scripture: And tell me if you believe it or not:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

What was Paul's commisstion.

What was not Paul's commission. Hi DHK:

I been following this thread and studying and taking in everyone’s opinion and I was reading over 1 Corinthians 1:17 and I decided to read the whole chapter to try and get a good grasp on 1:17.

Starting at verse 12-16 we read: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

When I read this it seemed to me that there may have been people baptizing other’s in there own name, because Paul made this comment Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?….Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

First the gospel has to be preached, because faith comes by hearing and it just seemed to me that Paul made that statement in verse 17 to show the gospel has to be preached first and that his job wasn’t to just baptize only and take all the glory, which seemed like some were doing before Paul could write them and set them straight.

Seems like there’s a lot more going on in the opening chapter than we realize, but that’s just my opinion.

What are your thoughts on the other verses?

Blessings

bmerr

08-19-2005, 01:52 PM

riverm,

bmerr here. You are to be commended for examining the verse in it's context. As you noticed, Paul himself gives us the reason for his statements in this passage, "Lest any should say that I baptized in mine own name."

Much is made of Paul's statement in the preceding verse as well, "I thank God that I baptized none of you...", in an effort to show that if Paul had placed any importance on baptism as being essential to salvation, then he never would have said such a thing.

But he didn't say, "I thank God that none of you were baptized..."

Anyway, it's nice to see someone actually looking at what the Bible says. Keep it up.

In Christ,

bmerr

riverm

08-19-2005, 02:08 PM

Hi bmerr:

Thanks for the comment, it’s the best I can do with no formal education, but boy do I wish I was back in my 20’s I would’ve went to bible college and studied to be a theologian, but married in my 30’s with 3 kids under 4 and debt to my neck…lol…it’s hard to just go into more debt and pay for more college, just to study the bible as a hobby.

I just thank you guys for challenging me on both sides of the issue.

I just try not to isolate a verse and try to develop a doctrine or ridicule another doctrine (not that anybody here is doing that and I’m not pointing fingers). I just try and use the whole context of the bible and not one verse or one particular letter, like Romans, just my .02 worth.

Blessings to all!

DHK

08-19-2005, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by riverm:

Seems like there’s a lot more going on in the opening chapter than we realize, but that’s just my opinion.

What are your thoughts on the other verses?

Blessings I fully realize the context in which Paul was speaking. There was much division in the church. There were some that were following after Paul, after Peter, and some being more "spiritual" than others simply saying they were following "Christ." It was a divided church. Paul's answer was in the form of a rebuke. But that does not the negate the principle that he was setting forth.

That is akin to saying that the principles set forth in the "Lord's Prayer" are only for the disciples and/or the people present sitting at the feet of Jesus on the mount where the "sermon on the mount" was given. It is not applicable to us today because we weren't there. Are you willing to concede the same about the principle that Paul set forth in 1Cor.1:17?

I don't think so. This was a principle that he set forth applicable to where ever he went, not just the Corinthian church. Let's see what it is.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1. Christ sent me (Paul) not to baptize. First we see that Paul was not sent to baptize. Call Christ a liar if you wish, but that was not the commission that Christ had called him to. Paul testifies to that. Even if he had baptized Stephanus, and a couple of others, it is of no consequence, that was not what Paul was sent to do. It was not his commission. He was not sent to baptized. That is made clear right here in Scripture. Don't argue with me on this point. Your argument should be taken up with the author of the book.

2. Look at the differentiation Paul makes. Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Any objective reader can see that baptism is not part of the gospel. Paul just said it isn't. Paul was sent to preach the gospel which did not include baptism. He was sent to preach the gospel which he defines in 1Cor.15:1-5--the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does not include baptism. The COC deny both of these passages and say that the gospel includes baptism. Their doctrine is therefore heresy, contradicts the plain teaching of the Word of God, contradicts what Paul has plainly said twice in this chapter. Christ sent him not to baptize.
Christ sent him to preach the gospel.
The two are very different from each other and have nothing to do with each other. He had one commission not two. The gospel does not include baptism. How clear can this passage be!
Just as the Lord's Prayer applies to us today, so Paul's teaching here concerning the gospel applies to us today.
DHK

bmerr

08-19-2005, 02:49 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. Allow me to clarify a point, please. While the telling of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ may not require the mention of baptism, I would say that the instruction concerning how one should respond to the gospel does include baptism.

We could look at Peter's sermon on Pentecost of Acts 2. He preached Christ crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. So far, no mention of baptism.

But when asked, "What shall we do?" by his hearers, Peter told them to repent,and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Or, we could look at Phillip preaching in Samaria. Acts 8:5 says he "preached Christ unto them". Then in 8:12, we find that "...when they believed Phillip preaching the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Apparently, Phillip's instructions were the same as Peter's.

Or, we could look at Phillip's preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch. 8:35 tells us that Phillip "...preached unto him Jesus". Oddly enough, the first thing the eunuch asked about was baptism.

In fact, in every conversion account, we find those who believed the gospel responding to the message by being baptized.

So, I guess you could say that the gospel is not about baptism, but baptism, preceded by faith and repentance, was commanded as the required response to the gospel. Would you be more agreeable to that?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-19-2005, 03:05 PM

We have been over those passages Bmerr. We have seen how you have taken them out of their contexts. We have explained them to you dozens of times the correct exegetical meaning of the verses in questions. But the simple fact is that you refuse to believe what the Bible says.
1Cor.1:17 and 1Cor.15:1-4 are very clear on the matter of what the gospel is. Either you believe it or you don't. I prefer to believe what the Word of God teaches.
DHK

bmerr

08-19-2005, 04:45 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. I'll take that as a "No".

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-19-2005, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:

So, I guess you could say that the gospel is not about baptism, but baptism, preceded by faith and repentance, was commanded as the required response to the gospel. Would you be more agreeable to that?

In Christ,

bmerr Indeed faith and repentance preceded baptism.
Your statement clarified: Faith and repentance are commanded as the required response to the gospel, not baptism. Baptism is no where mentioned as part of the gospel in 1Cor.1:17 and in 1Cor.15:1-4. It is clearly differentiated from it. Paul takes great pains to differentiate baptism even as "a proper response to the gospel." It has nothing to do with the gospel!
It does not matter how long a person is baptized after a person believes or is saved, for it is not a part of salvation. For me it was two years. I was still saved during those two years. Baptism is not a part of salvation. It is step of obedience for the believer after salvation, after faith and repentance, or more accurately put, faith which includes repentance. Baptism definitely is not part of salvation.
DHK

ascund

08-20-2005, 01:28 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Was Paul being disobedient to Christ when he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas?

If baptism is not part of the gospel, then why would Paul have baptized anyone at all?Dear friend. We are not against baptism. Baptism is commanded by Jesus. Let's do it for the right reasons.

Baptism isn't part of the gospel and not associated with justification. It isn't salvific. Baptism is the first step of sanctification.

When Paul baptized people, it was the right thing to do - AFTER they were justified by faith in Jesus.

Justification and sanctification harmonize well with REformed theology. In Trentine theology, justification is set against sanctification with sanctification winning!

What kind of faith did those who heard Paul preach need to have in order to be saved?Simple child-like PASSIVE faith. If faith becomes any part human activity, then it is not faith but works. We can passively accept God's lavish free gift of salvation. We cannot actively do anything to earn it.

Lloyd

bmerr

08-21-2005, 10:17 PM

DHK & ascund,

bmerr here. Perhaps this should be on the "Baptism--Why?" thread, but since we've come to it, let me ask a couple of questions.

The claim is that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, but it is also admitted that it is commanded by Jesus. So, we should be baptized, but for the "right reasons". Do I have it right so far?

If so, what are the "right reasons"? Why should one be baptized at all, if it's not neccessary? Please provide book, chapter, and verse to support your responses.

Also, in reference to the "simple child-like faith", may I draw your attention to Matt 18:2-3? Here we read,

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Notice the kind of faith the child had. When Jesus called him, he came. He was obedient to the command of another. He submitted himself. He didn't just wander into the midst of them, and he didn't stand there acknowledging the fact that Jesus called him but not go to Him, expecting Him to drag him over. He responded to Jesus and was set in the midst of them.

It is repeatedly implied that we in the church of Christ teach that man "earns" his salvation. This is a false allegation. Obeying God's commands does not "earn" anything. Obedience is simply the manifestation of one's faith. It is a living, saving faith.

Remember, it is only those "he that doeth the will" of the Father that will enter into the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 7:21).

Sit back passively and hope for the best if you want to, I'll do my best to be faithful to Christ.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-21-2005, 10:29 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
The claim is that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, but it is also admitted that it is commanded by Jesus. So, we should be baptized, but for the "right reasons". Do I have it right so far?Absolutely not. Baptism has nothing to do with justification. It is part of salvation via sanctification. Justification + sanctification = salvation. However, justification is primal and enables sanctification. Sanctification without justificaiton is simply good works for the person going to hell.

Originally posted by bmerr:
It is repeatedly implied that we in the church of Christ teach that man "earns" his salvation. This is a false allegation. Obeying God's commands does not "earn" anything. Obedience is simply the manifestation of one's faith. It is a living, saving faith.The CoC is seen as a works religion because you place sanctification ahead of justification. For you, salvation is a conditional process. Initial justification is by faith but needs to be supplemented by obedience and faithfulness. ONly at an ill-defined level of perfection can final justification be awarded. You have no security because you are never sure if you are good enough.

This is terribly wrong. Justification is primal - not sanctification. Justification determines destiny - not rewards. Sanctification determines rewards - not destiny.

The unseen Spirit baptism is part of justification and is eternal (2 Cor 4:18).

The visible water baptism is temporal and part of sanctification.

The difference is critical. What can I do to help you see this?
Lloyd

steaver

08-21-2005, 10:34 PM

Sit back passively and hope for the best if you want to, I'll do my best to be faithful to Christ.
Therein lies the problem brother. 1) no one really does their best. 2) our best faithfulness adds nothing to our justification but rather adds only to our sanctification.

God Bless!

ascund

08-22-2005, 05:15 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by steaver:
Sit back passively and hope for the best if you want to, I'll do my best to be faithful to Christ.You, like bmerr, do not understand biblical salvation. Salvation is justification plus sanctification.

The gift of eternal life is God's activity. He planned it, prepared for it, executed it flawlessly, and now offers it freely to the world.

The gift of eternal life is passive to us. Humans cannot be God. We cannot plan, prepare for, earn, or work for God's free gift. However, we can accept it by faith. This is a passive affair. We receive justification. You have made a rather significant linguistics error in your understanding of the word "passive." You must understand my use of the word in the above context - not your slothful mental image.

Originally posted by steaver:
Therein lies the problem brother. 1) no one really does their best. 2) our best faithfulness adds nothing to our justification but rather adds only to our sanctificationFriend, you have only verified my main theological plank used against the error of water baptism regeneration. It is curious that here you seem to understand the distinctiveness of justification and sanctification. How is it that you go hot and cold in the same posting?

Justification is by faith in Jesus. Sanctification is by faithfulness and obedience. Water baptism is usually one of the first acts of obedience.

Lloyd

bmerr

08-22-2005, 09:19 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. steaver was quoting me with

Sit back passively and hope for the best if you want to, I'll do my best to be faithful to Christ.That was from one of my posts. Unless I'm mistake, steaver is on your side. That's why he supported your position in the second half of his post. I'm sure no offense was taken. He seems pretty reasonable for the most part.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-22-2005, 09:27 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. If salvation is not in any way dependant upon man's faithfulness to Christ, what will be the basis for one's reception of "Well done thou good and faithful servant"?

There are only two things given in Scripture (that I know of) for one to hear upon judgement. Either one will hear something like "I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt 7:23), or one will hear something like, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant..." (Matt 25:21).

I can find no words of welcome for the servant who knew his master's will, but did not do it. Faithfulness seems to be of eternal value.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-22-2005, 09:58 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
If salvation is not in any way dependant upon man's faithfulness to Christ, what will be the basis for one's reception of "Well done thou good and faithful servant"?Great question! This is is combination of justification and sanctification. Servant means they have been justified by faith. faithfulness implies various degrees of "good" works.

Recall my post on depravity. Even these "good" works are tainted with human corruption. Justification would be impossible were it not based solely on Christ's righteousness. But sanctification is entirely possible and rewarded even with the taint of depravity. I can't go further - I'm not God. However, 1 Cor 3:11-15 as yet shows that total bad works still saves the individual.

You ask penetrating question. They all lead to justification!

Lloyd

bmerr

08-25-2005, 04:35 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. So if one is a servant, and that means he was justified by faith, how do you explain the unfaithful servant who was stripped of what he had, and given his part with the unbelievers? Forgive the lack of Scripture references: no Bible with me right now.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-26-2005, 09:51 AM

Hey bmerr

I'm in a written debate in a Yahoo group. My time has been devoted to responding against the proposition that water baptism is required for salvation.

Here, you have yet delivered another fine question.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary gives the following:
The Lord was teaching that forgiveness ought to be in direct proportion to the amount forgiven. The first servant had been forgiven all, and he in turn should have forgiven all. A child of God has had all his sins forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore when someone sins against him, he ought to be willing to forgive . . . from the heart no matter how many times the act occurs.

I know you are interested in OSAS which was not addressed. Context rules! Let's see what it says.

Saved Peter is asking the question about forgiveness. So we must not push the metaphor beyond what it was originally given to answer.

The question is about forgiveness not security. The Bible has lots of examples of saved believers who were punished or killed for their rebellion. Moses is the best of the examples. One "little" rebellion and - WHAMO! - death in the wilderness. Yet he appeared beside Jesus in the transfiguration. We know he is saved.

I note that the unfaithful servant was only "given to the tormentors" Matt 18:34 - not that he had a part with unbelievers. Isn't it amazing how one's theological bias modifies scripture!

Great question.
Lloyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-26-2005, 12:44 PM

Quoiting Lloyd (ascund), "The unseen Spirit baptism is part of justification and is eternal (2 Cor 4:18).
The visible water baptism is temporal and part of sanctification.
The difference is critical. What can I do to help you see this?
Lloyd

Thanks, Lloyd, for the clarity!
I (personally) go one further, and cannot find a single instance of water baptism in the NT that wasn't an act of 'Apostolic' authority. Water-baptism (as far as I can see) stopped when the Apostolic generation had died out. The 'Spirit-baptism' is the baptism of Jesus Christ - it is the gift of grace whereby a sinner is born anew into the Kingdom of heaved SPIRITUALLY - that is, "by faith" - the 100% work and gift of the Holy Spirit.
So by the buy, I have somewhere on the Boad said once that Popedom boasts apostolic succession because it has retained water-baptism!

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-26-2005, 12:53 PM

Quoting Steaver, " our best faithfulness adds nothing to our justification but rather adds only to our sanctification."
Amen, Steaver; yet again I (personally - no war-mongering) go one further - I say, our best faithfulness adds nothing to our justification but rather adds only to our DAMNATION! (Remember Luther referring to Isaiah and the filthy rags-righteousness?)

bmerr

08-26-2005, 02:52 PM

Gerhard,

bmerr here. Curious view of baptism you have there. Which baptism was commanded in the context of the Great Commission?

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-26-2005, 02:53 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. I'm going to respond to your last post on the OSAS thread. I'll put your post with it.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-26-2005, 09:02 PM

Hey bmerr

Luke's Great Commission is a bit generic and we can't unlock the temp0ral sequences or inner relationships. But we can with Matthews!! graemlins/thumbs.gif

Matt 28:19 shows baptism (baptizw: a participle) is dependent upon discipleship (matheteuw: the main verb). Thus, remission of sins comes when one is made a disciple – not by water baptism.

Make disciple = justification (Spirit baptism).
Baptism = water baptism

2 Cor 4:18 shows that the unseen is eternal (Spirit baptism) while the seen is merely temporal (I can see, feel and drink water).

So Matthew's Great Commission has 'em both! Oh the joys of justification + sanctification.

So much harmony!
Lloyd

bmerr

08-28-2005, 08:48 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. You have cited 2 Cor 2:18 several times, with the intent of showing that Spirit baptism is "eternal", but water baptism is temporal, but I think you're misapplying what it says.

The context of this verse shows Paul to be contrasting the earthly sufferings of the faithful Christian (that which is seen) with the eternal reward of Heaven (that which is not seen).

If you were to apply your reasoning to Heb 11:1, then faith would be temporal, (and therefore worthless, by your reasoning), since faith is the evidence of things not seen. Apparently faith is something that can be seen, that points to something that cannot be seen.

Not only that, but by holding the idea that both Spirit baptism and water baptism are present, you end up in conflict with Eph 4:5, which tells us there is only "one baptism".

Lastly, Matt 28:19 (ASV), says to "...make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". It seems to me that it is by baptizing people that they are made disciples, not that they are baptized after they are made disciples.

The phrase "...baptizing them..." is explanatory, or instructive, concerning the command to make disciples of all nations.

How are things going on the Yahoo chat? Does the opposition need any help? I'd be glad to lend a hand, if they do!

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-29-2005, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:

Not only that, but by holding the idea that both Spirit baptism and water baptism are present, you end up in conflict with Eph 4:5, which tells us there is only "one baptism".
Good point. Consider the following:
The new birth is “of the Spirit” (John 3:5,7). The Spirit quickens and gives eternal life (John 6:63). The law of the Spirit of life frees (Rom 8:2). The lack of the Spirit denies eternal life (Rom 8:9). The Spirit is life (Rom 8:10). The Spirit baptizes believers into Christ (1 Cor 12:13). The Spirit seals and provides the earnest of eternal life (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6). Believers receive the Spirit by faith – not by works (Gal 3:2,14). The body without the Spirit is dead (Jam 2:26).

Hence, the only true baptism is the Spirit's baptism. Water baptism is nothing but a rite that marks the truth of the Spirit's eternal baptism. THERE IS ONLY ONE BAPTISM! Any move to uplift fickle water baptism above the Spirit's baptism creates a conflict with scripture. Similarly, any move to uplift fickle human obedience above Christ's obedience denies the Cross (unwittingly).

I continue posting Bible showing how the responses of a human-centered self-righteous system are in direct contrast to a Christ-centered system. However, as far as debates go, the side you are rooting for always wins irrespective of truth. (I think he needs ICU help).

Lloyd

mman

08-29-2005, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
The new birth is “of the Spirit” (John 3:5,7). John 3:5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

You ignore the “born of water” as if it were not even in the text. Being born of water is a requirement to entering the kingdom of God. Just what is the Kingdom? Matt 16:18-19, the word “Church” and “Kingdom” are used interchangeably.

This same Peter preached the gospel to the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, in Acts 2. When we read Acts 2:38, 41, and 47 we can see how Jesus statement in John 3:5 is exactly what happened in Acts 2.

The Spirit quickens and gives eternal life (John 6:63). The law of the Spirit of life frees (Rom 8:2). The lack of the Spirit denies eternal life (Rom 8:9). The Spirit is life (Rom 8:10).Agree

The Spirit baptizes believers into Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

I Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

This verse tells us we are baptized into one body. The body is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). Therefore we are baptized into one Church. This applies to Jews or Greeks, slaves or free. Who could this exclude? How did this take place on the day of Pentecost, for those Jews?

Peter and the other apostles spoke “as the Spirit gave them utterance” – Acts 2:4. What instruction did the Spirit give to the believing Jews in Acts 2:37? To repent and be baptized, for the remission of sins.

Acts 2:41, Those who received the word, (What word? The words uttered by the Spirit, through Peter) were baptized and added. Added to what? The Church, as verse 47 tells us.

See how John 3:5 again fits perfectly with I Cor 12:13 and Acts 2.

ascund

08-29-2005, 11:03 AM

Hey mman

You analysis of John 3:5 is flawed by failure to examine CONTEXT - again.

In John 3, Jesus makes three attempts to teach that the new birth is “from above” (anwthen) (John 3:3,7). Thus, the new birth is not associated with human activity. In 3:5 Jesus introduces the contrast of born of water versus born of Spirit. In 3:6, Jesus further defines the contrast. Physical life is contrasted with eternal life. Physical life comes through the waters of birth; spiritual life comes by God’s Spirit! Verse 7 supplies the bookend to verse 5 showing that the new birth is spiritual from above and not from human activity below. You ignore the contrast and redefine the water of physical birth as water baptism.

Your error is further amplified by looking at the three illustrations Jesus uses. The second illustration talks of the new birth as illustrated by the wind. The wind is equated with the Spirit. No water here!

Jesus’ third illustration is the brazen serpent. When the murmuring Hebrews were disciplined with snakes, God had Moses build a brazen serpent on a pole. For salvation, all the people needed to do was LOOK at the brazen serpent. Jesus equates this look with “whosoever believeth” has everlasting life! Here is but one of many verses that show faith without baptism results in eternal life.

These three illustrations show justification is an EVENT from above. Your wayward appeal to John 3:5 is really a support for God’s activity in justification and a denial of conditional human-centered process justification. Context shows that the contrast is physical versus spiritual.

CONTEXT! When will you learn to use context?
Lloyd

mman

08-29-2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

You analysis of John 3:5 is flawed by failure to examine CONTEXT - again.

In John 3, Jesus makes three attempts to teach that the new birth is “from above” (anwthen) (John 3:3,7). Thus, the new birth is not associated with human activity. In 3:5 Jesus introduces the contrast of born of water versus born of Spirit. In 3:6, Jesus further defines the contrast. Physical life is contrasted with eternal life. Physical life comes through the waters of birth; spiritual life comes by God’s Spirit! Verse 7 supplies the bookend to verse 5 showing that the new birth is spiritual from above and not from human activity below. You ignore the contrast and redefine the water of physical birth as water baptism.

Your error is further amplified by looking at the three illustrations Jesus uses. The second illustration talks of the new birth as illustrated by the wind. The wind is equated with the Spirit. No water here!

Jesus’ third illustration is the brazen serpent. When the murmuring Hebrews were disciplined with snakes, God had Moses build a brazen serpent on a pole. For salvation, all the people needed to do was LOOK at the brazen serpent. Jesus equates this look with “whosoever believeth” has everlasting life! Here is but one of many verses that show faith without baptism results in eternal life.

These three illustrations show justification is an EVENT from above. Your wayward appeal to John 3:5 is really a support for God’s activity in justification and a denial of conditional human-centered process justification. Context shows that the contrast is physical versus spiritual.

CONTEXT! When will you learn to use context?
Lloyd You make the same mistake Nicodemus made. He thought Jesus was talking about physical birth also, but Jesus corrected him.

To imply that Jesus makes physical birth a condition of entering the kingdom defies even common sense.

See, I can show where John 3:5, Acts 2, and Mark 16:16 all harmonize, while using the simple language and logical conclusion of each text in its context, yet you cannot.

Take the brass serpent example. What action was required for them not to die (be healed)? They had to look upon the serpent.

No doubt, there were a large number of people, in the camp of hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of people. It would take some effort to see that serpent, no doubt some travel for most who were bitten.

What virtue is there in a brass snake? Can we use brass snakes to heal snakebite today? Of course not. Did the effort required to see the snake earn deliverance from the snake bite? No. God was the healer. He used the brass snake as a means to provide that healing. What about the person who was bitten, believed with all his heart what God said about the brass snake, yet remained in his tent? Could his belief alone protect him from the poision of the snake? Was belief alone enough or was some action required? Why would anyone think that looking on a brass snake could cure them? God said so and they believed Him, or in other words, by faith. It makes no sense by human reasoning, it was done by faith.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved - Mark 16:16. Is belief alone enough? Born of water. What virtue is there in water? Can water wash away sins? Can looking on a brass snake cure snakebite? No, the power is in God. Does baptism "earn" anything? No more than looking on a brass snake "earned" a cure. The power is in God, not the water or the snake. Why would anyone think that baptism washes away our sins? God said so, and we believe him, or in other words by faith. It makes no sense to my human reasoning, it is done by faith.

That is how we are born from above. God does it when we are "born of the water and the Spirit".

Paul said, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." - Gal 3:26-27.

God's childern are born. Born from above. They have been baptized INTO Christ. Some try to take the water out of John 3:5 and Gal 3:27.

You cannot take the water out of Acts 8:35-36, "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Preaching Jesus includes instructions for water baptism. Philip preached this same Jesus that said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" and also said, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

bmerr

08-30-2005, 04:16 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. I'd like to adress something mman may have overlooked. You seemed to imply that the Holy Spirit is blowing around converting people in John 3:8. I've heard this taught before. I believe the idea was popularized by Billy Graham :rolleyes: . Here's the text:

John 3:8 - The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

First off, the Holy Spirit is not even a glorified "It", let alone some ordinary old "it". The Spirit is a Person of the Godhead, and is referred to in the masculine by Jesus in John 14:26, and 16:7-15.

Secondly, there are only two things blowing around in John 3:8: wind, and people. The Spirit is not. If you want the Holy Spirit to blow around, you're going to have to find another passage to teach it, because John 3:8 does not.

You also seemed to imply that "born of water" is a reference to physical childbirth. If this is the case, Jesus corrected Nicodemus by telling him he was correct!

Jesus would be telling a full grown man that he needed to be born. How absurd! That's what Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about, and it didn't make sense to him, either. That's why Jesus corrected him.

The phrase "born of water, and of the Spirit", is but a restatement of "born again". Jesus goes on to explain that "that which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Water is only paired with Spirit. The kingdom would not be a physical one, but a spiritual one. It is the church, that has existed since Pentecost of Acts 2, not some earthly domain ruled from Jerusalem, as the deluded masses seem to be waiting for.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-30-2005, 09:19 PM

hey bmerr

You miss John 3:3. The new birth is "from above." Born again is better translated as born from above. In verse 6 Jesus supplies the contrast between physical and spiritual.

Jesus didn't confirm that a person had to be an adult. He confirmed that one had to be physically born. Even Nicodemus understood the birth as a new born babe for he wondered how one could get back into the womb.

The next illustration continues the physical / Spiritual contrast. Here, the wind blows. You can't see it but you can see the result. This shows that the new birth is unseen (2 Cor 4:18) and eternal. The illustration isn't about God the Spirit. It is about the saving process not being seen. If you can see a baptism, then it doesn't save.

Jesus third illustration is the brazen serpent. Only the LOOK of faith was required for salvation. Jesus says that this is what is required from "whosoever believes." Nothing beyond a decision to trust is Jesus is required for the new birth - from above - that cannot be seen - that depends only and solely upon the LOOk of faith.

All three say the same thing. None of the three refers to water baptism.

Lloyd

ascund

08-30-2005, 09:24 PM

hey mman

the emphasis upon being born physically restricts the gospel message to humans and rules out any appeal to demons.

The contrast between physical / spiritual rules out any appeal to water baptism. The spiritual saves; the physical doesn't. Pretty easy. Why do you stumble so hard?

I didn't make the parallel between Jesus and the brazen serpent. It has value only when God says it has value. God said that whoever looked at the serpent would live. Jesus said that whoever would look at him lifted up as the serpent (John 3:14) would live.

Pretty easy parallel. Why do you stumble so hard?

Lloyd

mman

08-31-2005, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
hey mman

the emphasis upon being born physically restricts the gospel message to humans and rules out any appeal to demons.

The contrast between physical / spiritual rules out any appeal to water baptism. The spiritual saves; the physical doesn't. Pretty easy. Why do you stumble so hard?

I didn't make the parallel between Jesus and the brazen serpent. It has value only when God says it has value. God said that whoever looked at the serpent would live. Jesus said that whoever would look at him lifted up as the serpent (John 3:14) would live.

Pretty easy parallel. Why do you stumble so hard?

Lloyd And just a few verses later, John 3:36 (ESV) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Even with the serpent, action was required. They had to get up and go to where the serpent was, regardless of how much they believed. We must also get up and go to Christ (Acts 22:16, Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-4). We are baptized into Christ.

You preach a different Jesus than Philip preached (Acts 8:35-36).

bmerr

08-31-2005, 04:58 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Born from above is fine. The command to be born of water (baptized) came from above, not from men.

I didn't mean to say the Jesus confirmed one had to be an adult. I meant to say that Jesus telling an adult that he had to be physically born would be ridiculous. That is what He would have been saying if "born of water" refers to physical birth.

The wind blows in John 3:8. The Spirit does not. You are still using 2 Cor 4:18 out of context. Paul is comparing the persecutions of the world, which are seen, with the reward of heaven, which is not seen. You should know better.

Hearing the sound of the wind, but not knowing where it comes from, or where it's going, is further explained in 3:11-12.

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye recieve not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And perhaps another look at the text of John 3:14-15 might clear things up:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Jesus did not say, "That whosoever looks at him will live", but that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish. Belief is prerequisite to baptism (born of water), which is also required for salvation (Mark 16:16, etc).

Jesus was lifted up in the same manner as the brasen serpent was, but for a different purpose.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

09-01-2005, 08:43 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by mman:
Even with the serpent, action was required. They had to get up and go to where the serpent was, regardless of how much they believed. We must also get up and go to Christ (Acts 22:16, Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-4). We are baptized into Christ.There is a minimal action in faith: one must make a decision for Christ. But in the overall scheme, justification is passive as sinners merely receive God's gift of eternal life. This action does not include any works, deeds, sacraments, endurance, etc.

You error in wishing to take the minimal act of a saving LOOK to Jesus and convert it into a full-fledged system of human obedience. This is thoroughly denounced throughout scripture.

Justification is passive. Have you never done a word study on dikaioo? Only God is active in justification!

Lloyd

ascund

09-01-2005, 08:58 PM

Greetings bmerr:

I truly hope I don’t sound vicious – but you’ve botched the illustration of the brazen serpent quite badly. Let me show you my view.

In verse 14, Jesus begins His third and last attempt to get through to Nicodemus. He used the illustration of Moses and the serpent (Num 21:8-9). He begins using the Greek word kathoos which means according as, just as, even as, in proportion as, in the degree that. So the teaching of John 3:16 is just like the teaching of Num 21:8-9. So what happened in Num 21:8-9?

The rebellious and stiff necked Israelites had once again murmured. For discipline, God sent poisonous snakes among the people to which they cried to Moses for help. God told Moses to put a serpent on a brazen pole such that that “when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived” (Num 21:9). The words used are most enlightening.

The Hebrew word for when he beheld is a Hiphil Perfect. The Hiphil stem is that which expresses the causative action of the Qal stem. The Perfect mood expresses a completed action. Hebrew tenses are not constructed about past/present/future like English and Greek. Rather, the Hebrew tenses express action as completed or not completed. Hebrew does not allow anything like the double meaning in the Greek present tense: I wash or I am washing. The idea of durative continuing looking is an easy task in Hebrew. Therefore, we must note that the action in Numbers 21 is completed. The Hebrew context for John 3:14-18 dictates a one time completed look.

Similarly, the Hebrew words for looketh and shall live are a Qal Perfect. The Qal stem is that of simple action while the Perfect mood expresses a completed action. The future in English was the KJV translators’ choice for us English speakers. The Hebrew idea conveys the idea that any one completed action of looking at the pole results in a once for all certain completed salvation.

The key to the story is that the act of merely looking up to the bronze serpent was an act of faith. The murmuring rebellious Israelites didn’t have to get cleaned up, confess sins, or offer up sacrifices. All they had to do was LOOK and LIVE! This is what the context must bring into our understanding of John 3:16. The Greek words chosen must reflect the teaching of context and be understood in the same way that it was chosen.

Your view misses the analogy to the Hebrew tenses. Advanced knowledge shows many present tense categories; such as: Instantaneous, Aoristic, Progressive, Extending-From-Past, Gnomic, Historic, Perfective, Tendential, Futuristic, and Indirect Discourse. [Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 513-37.]

Proper exegesis of a passage cannot happen until we realize that Greek words have a broad range of definitions which must be determined by context. This is why Jesus used the story of the murmuring Israelites and the serpent of brass. The Greek words are trying to replicate the idea of the Hebrew – a difficult task in many instances.

The choices in Greek to represent a completed action are: (1) the simple aorist, (2) the perfect tense, (3) the Instantaneous Present, (4) the Gnomic present or (5) the Perfective Present.

It is true that once faith has been placed in Jesus such that the results of that action continue as in the Perfective Present. But it is also true that this is a truth whether or not the decision to believe in Jesus is made. A key to recognizing the Gnomic Present is a generic subject or object. Furthermore, the general formula is ho + present participle.[ Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 523.] This is used in verses 15 and 16 (whoever believes). The KJV translators were right to use the word whoever.

Hence the general, timeless Gnomic truth is the best translation of this passage. Any second year Greek student is expected to know: aktionsart (context) is superior to aspect (grammar)!

In summary, the Greek text action represents a timeless truth such that the actions are completed at the moment of faith just like the Hebrew Qal Perfect in Numbers 21. Whoever believes just once has complete, sufficient, final eternal life. The combination of context with the force of the Gnomic Present is biblical and OSAS.

Without trying to talk down at you, it appears as if you have never taken a course in Greek.
Things would open up so much if you could peek into the underlying Greek. There are several good self-learning texts and software that could bring you up to speed rather quickly. If you’re interested, let me know.

Lloyd

mman

09-01-2005, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
Even with the serpent, action was required. They had to get up and go to where the serpent was, regardless of how much they believed. We must also get up and go to Christ (Acts 22:16, Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-4). We are baptized into Christ.There is a minimal action in faith: one must make a decision for Christ. But in the overall scheme, justification is passive as sinners merely receive God's gift of eternal life. This action does not include any works, deeds, sacraments, endurance, etc.

You error in wishing to take the minimal act of a saving LOOK to Jesus and convert it into a full-fledged system of human obedience. This is thoroughly denounced throughout scripture.

Justification is passive. Have you never done a word study on dikaioo? Only God is active in justification!

Lloyd [/QUOTE]OF COURSE JUSTIFICATION IS PASSIVE. I have never argued that I in any way earn justification.

When I am obedient, I don't earn anything, how contrary to all scripture. God is the one who justifies, not man. Justification is by faith. I don't know of anything taught more clearly in all of scripture. You obviously don't understand what I've been saying.

How utterly ridiculous to think that baptism is meritorious or in any way would earn anything. If there were any merit in it, then God would owe anyone dunked under the water for any reason.

The ONLY reason anyone would ever be baptized is God said so. When we obey, we do so by faith, not because it earns anything!

I am a child of God by faith because I have been baptized (Gal 3:26-27). I am justified because God declared me to be justified, NOT BECAUSE I EARNED ANYTHING!.

Of course justification is passive, no arguments from me. The only work ever associated with baptism is what God does. God is the one working (Col 2:12). If you think about it, baptism is a passive event. The one being baptized does nothing!

The walls of Jericho fell by faith (Heb 11:30). Did they earn it? No. In fact, Jericho had been given to them as a gift from God (Josh 6:2). Of course they didn't earn that. You don't earn a gift. Yes, they had to receive that gift. Was there any merit in their actions? No. If there were, then God would owe it to us today, if we performed those same actions. No, they fell by faith, after they were obedient.

Jesus used words so simple and plain that one would have to have help to misunderstand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." - Mark 16:16

For some reason, many don't believe Jesus or think he really meant to say something else. Many teach that "He that believes is saved, and is baptized." Peter says, Baptism now saves us. Many say, "Baptism does not save us". Just like in the garden, a "not" is added.

Yes, justification is passive, because we can't earn it, it is given.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

09-02-2005, 10:46 AM

Reading this thread has been quite enjoyable so far!
Luther coined the phrase "by faith only" or "by faith alone". He knew what he was talking! And the choice is yours to this very day: it's Romish Error and faith plus whatever; or faith alone and Gospel faith!

Gerhard Ebersoehn

09-02-2005, 10:56 AM

Quoting mmann, "Yes, justification is passive, because we can't earn it, it is given."

Yes, and justification is forgiveness of sin - that was the issue between Luther and the Pope's men. Then just like justification "is given", faith, "is given". Neither faith nor justification is CONDITIONED on anything but grace - or forgiveness of sins must be based on something more than just faith alone! Now what would anyone dare present as worth his forgiveness of sin? His faith? Then it is not faith nor ever was faith, but presumptionb and pride.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

09-02-2005, 11:06 AM

Referring to mmann, Many teach that He that believes and is baptized in water is saved, ands not before!
Now the passage not in the least differentiates between the two things "believe" and "baptise". Here happened what Jesus commanded should happen, that being baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, means just what it says, and it EFFECTS faith. The baptism of Christ - in other words - is to be immersed in the Name of God with the Power of God over and within a man whereby he shall be regenerated - whereby he shall be born again and shall put on the New Man which is Jesus Christ through faith. It says NOTHING, of water or water-baptism.

ascund

09-02-2005, 01:41 PM

Hey mman

Glad to see we agree on justification being God's activity alone.

Would you also now please address my comments on faith?

In a nutshell, the activity of Looking to Jesus for justification compared to the activity of faith in sanctified obedience.

Thanks!
Lloyd

bmerr

09-03-2005, 11:41 PM

Gerhard,

bmerr here. Okay, salvation by faith. Who's faith? What kind of faith? Describe the faith a person needs to have to be saved by "faith only". What's it look like? How do you know you've got it? What is this faith the evidence of (Heb 11:1)?

That's what this thread is all about, right?

I can only think of two kinds of faith. Faith with works, or faith without works. I'm not talking about the works of the Law, or works of merit, whereby one earns his salvation, but works of simple obedience that demonstrate one's belief in God's promises (ie. Abraham offering Isaac: not part of the Law; not a meritorious work; Abraham just did what God told him to do.)

So what is the "faith" of the "faith only" view?

In Christ,

bmerr

Gerhard Ebersoehn

09-04-2005, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

Glad to see we agree on justification being God's activity alone.

Would you also now please address my comments on faith?

In a nutshell, the activity of Looking to Jesus for justification compared to the activity of faith in sanctified obedience.

Thanks!
Lloyd I'll answer with another text Luther capatalised on, that one in Isaiah which says: "Filthy rags"! That's it "in a nutshell", ascund, and I think we shall be in agreement once again?

mman

09-06-2005, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
Reading this thread has been quite enjoyable so far!
Luther coined the phrase "by faith only" or "by faith alone". He knew what he was talking! And the choice is yours to this very day: it's Romish Error and faith plus whatever; or faith alone and Gospel faith! Actually, God coined the phrase "faith only" or "faith alone". The inspired writer used it in James 2:24, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

I think God also knows what he is talking about.

mman

09-06-2005, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
There is a minimal action in faith: one must make a decision for Christ. But in the overall scheme, justification is passive as sinners merely receive God's gift of eternal life. This action does not include any works, deeds, sacraments, endurance, etc.Minimal action?

John 3:36 (NAS), "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him"

Heb 3:18 - 19 (NAS) And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

Did these thousands/millions of people suddenly stop believing in the God that sent the plagues and divided the Red sea they had passed though on dry ground? It isn't that they stopped believing, they stopped acting on that belief or in other words, they were disobedient or unbelieving.

Read Heb 11 and tell me if you really think all works associated with faith are minimal.

Baptism is not a work. Baptism is part of faith, that comes from hearing/reading God's word. Baptism does not earn anything, it is done because God said to (faith).

Can someone really make Jesus Lord of their life and not accept what He said? Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Just like those Israelites, you may have a mental recognition of who Jesus/God is, but if you don't do what He says, you can be described as disobedient or unbelieving.

Gal 3:26-28 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This applies to the Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2), the Eunuch in Acts 8, and those in Rome in Romans 6. Why were all these baptized? Faith, or God said so.

You cannot be baptized with the Spirit by faith, because that was a promise, not a command.

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered (Did what God said)

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah...constructed an ark (Did what God said). Can it be said, that by faith it rained on Noah? No, the rain was a promise from God that happened to Noah. By faith, he prepared an ark. He could either choose to build or not to build. He had free will. He did all that God commanded him to do (Gen 6:22). The bible calls that faith in Heb 11:7.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed (Did what God said)

Heb 11:9 By faith he went (did what God said)

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham... offered up Isaac (did what God said)

There are many other examples I could give. All these were done by faith. The source of faith is God's word (Rom 10:17). Therefore, baptism is done through faith, just as Col 2:12 states, "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Is this an act of merit? No, it is an act of faith.

ascund

09-06-2005, 09:04 AM

Hey mman

Originally posted by mman:
Actually, God coined the phrase "faith only" or "faith alone". The inspired writer used it in James 2:24, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." I think God also knows what he is talking about.
Context rules! James 2:24 is written to believers ALREADY SAVED by faith in Jesus who are justified BEFORE GOD.

James wishes for them to vindicate (the right translation for dikaioo here) their present ROCK solid position in Christ through good works BEFORE OTHERS.

Context rules! So justification before God is by faith alone! Sanctification before others is by faith plus good works.

One can understand the difference only when one understands the distinction between justification and sanctification. Hence, this is the chief article by which the church or an individual stands or falls (Luther).

God knows what He is talking about.
It is our task to agree with Him!
Lloyd

ascund

09-06-2005, 09:12 AM

Hey mman

You put a lot of work into that post! I applaud your willingness to use God's Word. However, your obiter dictum must be rejected for you have made two standard errors.

First, the LOOK of faith (John 3) had no equivalent to baptism. The murmuring Israelites did not have to get circumcised, offer sacrifices or DO ANYTHING else. This is the message of John 3:16. Baptism is an act of consecration to God for service - just like Noah.

Second, the many Hebrews examples are of one's entire life. Justification (the new birth by faith alone) is followed by sanctification (consecration through baptism and purification into the image of Christ).

You have wrongly conflated justification and sanctification.

The heart of both errors is a tragic misunderstanding of justification. I invite you to look at the thread on Event vrs Process Justification that I started a short while ago.

Your oversights will evaporate when you embrace biblical justification.
Lloyd

bmerr

09-06-2005, 04:35 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. How is it that you keep peddling the "justification before others" guff about James 2? Abraham was not justified before other people when he offered Isaac. He was justified before God when he offered Isaac. That's why it was God who said, "...now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son...from me" (Gen 22:12).

Nobody but God said that to Abraham. There were no onlookers, no live studio audience, nobody from DCS with a camcorder to take custody away from Abraham. The offering of Isaac was between Abraham and God alone.

Such complete disregard for the text is beneath you, sir. Your concept of justification/sanctification is erroneous. You seem to have been taught error by those who also sincerely believe it. The result is that vast portions of the Bible can't possibly mean what they say, because what they say doesn't fit what you've been taught.

I hope all your education hasn't ruined you.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

09-06-2005, 04:45 PM

He bmerr

[/quote] Originally posted by bmerr:
How is it that you keep peddling the "justification before others" guff about James 2? Abraham was not justified before other people when he offered Isaac. He was justified before God when he offered Isaac. That's why it was God who said, "...now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son...from me" (Gen 22:12).[/quote]

First, Abraham was justified by his faith long before his ordeal with Isaac on Mt. Moriah (Gen 15).

Second, Abraham vindicated his justification through his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. At that time God knew fully well that Abraham was a fitting example for all saints of any testaments (Gen 22:12; Rom 4).

Third, while Abraham did not perform this before onlookers, James uses Abraham as a means to encourage works before others. James is the one who is re-interpreting history. We must assume that he was inspired.

Fourth, my concept of justification and sanctification is built up from lexical analysis. God didn't mutter as He inspired His Word. Anyone is free to examine my lexical analysis and comment. Furthermore, everyone should be able to duplicate such a small effort. This is the basic building block for theology - not human-centered presuppositions.

Lloyd

bmerr

09-07-2005, 04:58 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Justification by "faith alone" is denied by the Scriptures. No amount of lexical analysis can change that. James (who was, in fact, inspired), tells us that Gen 15:6 was fulfilled in Gen 22, after Abraham offered Isaac (James 2:23). Again, there is no level of advanced Greek knowledge that makes that untrue.

Lloyd, I'm not mad at you or anything, I do respect the effort you've put into your education, and for the most part, I commend you for your treatment of others who disagree with you.

But so much of your time seems to be spent trying to explain why the text doesn't mean what it says. Translations may not be perfect, but it seems to me that if the text means other than what it says so much of the time, should it not actually say something different than what is written?

Honestly, if I need to be a Greek scholar to read and understand the Bible, then I'm wasting my time. The English works fine.

I heard someone say that "the Greek" is like underwear: it's good to support the foundation, but you probably don't want to walk around in public with it.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

09-07-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
Lloyd,

bmerr here. Justification by "faith alone" is denied by the Scriptures. No amount of lexical analysis can change that.
bmerr Justification by faith alone is taught clearly, forthrightly, over and over again, by Scripture. Just using the one reference: Eph.2:8,9, it cannot be denied. This has been demonstrated to you many times. If you fail to believe the Bible, you deny God and His Word.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

ascund

09-07-2005, 09:18 PM

Hey bmerr:

Originally posted by bmerr:
Honestly, if I need to be a Greek scholar to read and understand the Bible, then I'm wasting my time. The English works fine.I hear that a lot. Translations do a great job of preserving the meaning. However, something is always lost. It is difficult - nay, impossible - to translate everything from Greek into English.

Hence, if you wish only to be edified by God's promises, grace and mercy English does a swell job.

If you want to find out how to inherit eternal life, then English is super.

But for the finer points of theology that only guys like you and I seem to be interested in, then knowledge of the original language is indispensible.

Confusion at the best; heresy at the worst results when these finer points of God's Word are overlooked. Case in point, justification is passive. Passivity is tough to translate into English. Hence, while it is easy to assume activity one would be totally wrong to do so.

You downplay this Greek business because it flatly contradicts your human-centered philosophy. I champion the Greek because it supports justification by faith alone in Jesus' alone.

Your little story about underwear had to come from someone who had a low opinion of the importance of Greek. For me, the opposite is true. No exegesis of any portion of God's Word is valid without full attention to the original language be it Hebrew or Greek.

The perfect tense is the hardest to translate. Many passages that utilize the perfect tense are foundational for OSAS. For example

John 5:24 "Most assuredly I say to you that whoever hears my Word and believes in the One Who sent me has life, and shall not come into judgment but HAS PASSED from death into life.

The bolded words are the Greek Perfect Tense. It shows the enduring results of a past action. This enduring result cannot cease without some direct statement that stops it. Without such a statement, the Greek Perfect Tense is the functional equivalent to "permanent."

You don't like this for you have embraced a system that has overlooked this. OSAS is very biblical!

Lloyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn

09-08-2005, 08:19 PM

Faith is believing in God. That means faith is faith in God's Election. That excludes works in and of whatever form or sort because He elected the saved before He even created the world. Salvation is of and by grace, mate! You claim just one of your own works, like love, or faith, and you actually tell God in the face, I don't trust you or your election or your grace. By faith alone!

bmerr

09-08-2005, 11:24 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. I've long since come to realize that you are capable of arguing over my head. That's okay. You've spent a long time educating yourself, and talking over people less educated is a natural result. My dogs don't understand me very often. It's not my fault, they're just not a smart as I am graemlins/laugh.gif !

But something you said in your last post kind of makes my point for me. You said if one wants to know how to inherit eternal life, the English works great. What more does one need to know? I cannot inherit eternal life without being justified before God.

The English tells me that I cannot be justified by faith only, but by faith made perfect by works (James 2:24). It also tells me I cannot be justified by works of the law (Rom 3:20), or by my own righteousness (Tit 3:5; Is 64:6).

The only kind of work left is obedience to the commands of God. In this case, God would be active in giving man instructions. Those who submit (the passive side) to God's authority by obeying Him, would then be justified.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible never teaches salvation or justification by "faith only". It' certainly doesn't "thunder" it! It does, however, teach justification and salvation by faith. There is a difference.

Since English is what I have to work with, it'll have to do for now. In the future I hope to pick up a knowledge of the Greek. I don't expect my beliefs will change, but they might.

Some might say this with sarcasm, or malice, but I sincerely would like you to consider if you are approaching the Bible objectively. No matter how much education one might have, one's personal bias can cloud the meaning of the Bible, and result in only deeper seated error.

The reason I say this is that I used to believe as you do, in nearly every way. I ended up having to explain away so many passages that I started to doubt the Bible as a whole. But when I made the decision that no matter what I had been taught, or by whom, the Bible was going to have the final say, I had to reject many of the things I had believed. In fact, I found out that I hadn't even become a Christian.

I'm concerned for you, Lloyd. As much as anyone else on these boards. I'm sure you're concerned for me as well. Why else would we spend so much time here?

BTW, I'm going in for my third lumbar epidural steroid injection tomorrow morning. I'm hoping for good results.

In Christ,

bmerr