Saving Faith

Paul, Abraham, and David would seem to disagree with you here.

Ed

 

No, they agree wholeheartedly but I think you misunderstood what I meant.

Their salvation was secured through faith but just because they were not perfect does not discount the fact they believed and tried to live as unto the Lord. Again I think you misunderstood what I was saying Ed. They were not justified by their works but by faith - yet works are the natural results which come from faith/belief. A life that has been changed reveals itself through a changed life.

Do you find Paul, Abraham, and David - believing but not living as though they were changed?

We find them falling at times but always repenting and seeking to live unto the Lord because 'they believed'. They did not believe and live in whatever manner they wanted.

Thus if a person has believed their actions will reflect such. The actions do not and can not save but they can be noted as that which accompanies the salvation which has changed a man.

 

First of all, what is justification? What does it mean? Well, it is a legal term, a term used in a court room. To be justified is to be declared just or righteous. Justification isn't becoming just or righteous, it is a declaration of that state. Jesus was said to be "justified in the Spirit". I think we'll all agree He didn't become just or righteous, He always was. But, He was declared so.

We are declared righteous by the great Judge of the universe, Almighty God. Paul calls this justification by grace or by His blood. This is the justification Paul mentions in Romans 8:30 (whom he called, he also justified...). So, in an absolute, eternal sense we've been declared just or righteous before God. Though we are sinful man, breakers of the law, clothed in the filthy rags of our own righteousness, we are declared to be righteous by God. Wow! What an amazing thing that is!

The confusion happens when we keep reading the bible and we see two more phrases - justification by faith and by works. The key to understanding this is to understand that the word by here tells us that grace, faith, or works (depending on the particular phrase) is the means of that justification. So Paul says I'm justified by grace. Then he says I could be justified by faith. Ok, so which is it, grace or faith? Something unmerited or something I do. Further confusion occurs when I read James and see him saying I could be justified by works. Hang on now, is it grace, faith, or works? The answer is all 3. How? Well, these phrases must be describing separate events, separate justifications.

Notice that Pauls tells Titus, "that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Ok, so justification by grace yields eternal life. Paul tells the Romans, "therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Ok, so justification by faith yields a timely blessing, peace with God (notice God doesn't have peace with us through this, but rather through the cross). Now justification by works, says James, proves justification by faith, so it appears it has a timely blessing too.

I must come to the conclusion that all 3 events happen in separate courtrooms. Justification by grace, according to what we've read, takes place in the eternal courtroom of God with absolute, eternal consequences. Justification by faith has timely consequences and appears to happen in our conscious, thus when justified here I have peace with God. Jusification by works seems to play out in front of others, thus when justified by works others can see my faith at work and know I'm one of God's and give Him all the glory.

You may object to this, but look at one of the two key examples Paul gives of justification by faith. Abraham, in Genesis 15:6, is said then to be justified by faith. Now, if that means that was the moment he was saved eternally, we have some problems. You see, Abraham has been walking after God for years now with a stronger faith that most of us have displayed in our lives thus far. I mean, the man was told when over 70 years old, to leave his homeland, his family, and his father's house, and go to a place the Lord would later reveal to him. Hebrews says he obeyed by faith and went not knowing where he was going. That's strong faith. All along the way he is erecting altars and worshipping God. You're going to have a hard time arguing that this man wasn't already eternally saved. Find me someone in a perishing condition doing these things.

Now, this may sound odd, but it really shouldn't. Isn't the bible replete with exhortations of obedience that render blessings to us right here in time? Aren't disciples exhorted to have faith in Christ? It just makes sense. God has saved us eternally, but He also saves us in time from many things, one of them being despair. God is truly good to us, giving us faith to believe in Him and have hope of eternal life, leading us to having peace in time. Aren't there benefits to believing God today, tomorrow, and so forth? Of course.

 

This latest attempt to get us to dismiss the teaching of Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV), or to toss aside the teaching of Ephesians 2:8-10, is not going to work. Both of these passages should be taken at face value; the necessity of obedience does not add works subsequent to faith. The attitude/disposition of obedience is included within faith.[/quote]

No; whether you want to admit or not, you strip "believeth" of any significance whatsoever.

In Scripture, to genuinely believe on Jesus Christ as Lord is to believe it so much that it revolutionizes how a person lives and thinks.

In Scripture, to genuinely believe on Jesus Christ as Lord has within it repentance, obedience, willing devotion, conviction to live as His disciple/follower.

To you, "believeth" is minus repentance, is minus obedience, is minus anything that has little to no more meaning than intellectual assent.

Not in my Bible.

I love face value, but let me highlight the part you miss.

The bath does not save us. The Bible is clear. In this passage, Peter is talking in "figure" (BishB). What saves us is "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" (NASB), which baptism is a "figure" of, as well as something else baptism is a "figure" of: "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (NASB).

I want to commend you: you quoted more than most people of your persuasion do. Many people cut Peter off mid-sentence.

Face value is clear: "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" (NASB).

Also, face value is clear: Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

 

Well, I do not know much about the semantics game you want to play.

I just try to stick with the text of the Scriptures, and just go with what the Bible says.

I think what Peter said is pretty clear to most of us.

Peter made it clear that the water bath is not what he is referring to. Peter states that he is speaking in "figure" (BishB) here. Baptism is used in this passage as a "figure" for two things:
1) the repentance that is part of faith that brings us to baptism,
2) the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He makes it clear that he is not referring to the actual water bath. He seemed to be concerned about being misunderstood exactly as you misunderstand him.

Dude/dudette -- I "ignore" nothing. I hope you are not going to reduce yourself to making bogus accusations.

I know that the Bible cannot teach something and simultaneously teach its negation.

None of your passages deny salvation by faith. Not one.

I cannot figure out why the Matthew 26 passage was even mentioned. Yeah Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins. I do not see how that would deny salvation by faith.

I am not sure what you think Luke 24:47 does to deny salvation by faith, unless you mean faith to mean little more than intellectual assent -- which I think is your position based on how you subtract anything of meaning from faith. I still do not understand how you can hold that a person might believe on Jesus Christ as Lord and not simultaneously repent; I do not understand how you can make "repent" something separate from "believe." The Bible's teaching about what it means to "believe on the Lord Jesus" means a whole lot more than you give it credit.

Your favorite passage, which would prompt you to throw out the rest of the New Testament's teachings on salvation, is Acts 2:38. While in other threads I have pointed out to you that there are other ways this passage is translated, the translation here does not matter. In every translation I have ever seen in any language, this passage does not state that if someone fails to be baptized, s/he will not receive remission of sins.

Acts 10:43 expressly says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

You deny that. Your position is that if a person believes on Jesus Christ, yet fails to be baptized, then s/he does not receive remission of sins. Hence, you teach the direct negation of the passage: `NOT everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins.'

If your position is correct, and a person can believe on Jesus Christ and not receive remission of sins, then the Bible is untrustworthy. Both you and I might as well not even bother with it anymore.

I reject that premise. The Bible is trustworthy, and Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ESV) is true.

 

Man, talk about twisting a fresh pulled turnip for human blood.
Our justification is by grace which is through faith. Justification is not only timely but also, at the same time eternal.

We are not saved in the eternal and then temporal. We are not born saved (eternal) and them come into timely salvation (temporal). If that is what you are saying then that kind of teaching is completely unbiblical. It gives rise to all kinds of false teachings such as some are saved who have never believed and that some are even saved while rejecting Him even unto their death because God saved them eternally first and that their salvation temporally is just an added benifit.

 

I deny the idea that one born of God is going to reject Him. But, not everyone is going to hear the gospel. What about the person that doesn't get to hear the good news?

What about the person that is born of God, yet doesn't live like he/she should? Isn't a pear tree still a pear tree even though it may not bring forth pears? We can't tell it is a pear tree, but it still is one.

What about Romans 8:30 where Paul says that those God calls are also justified by Him? Later on he asks, "who can lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." What about those texts?

What about justification by works? How does that fit in if my faith is what justifies me eternally? Am I justified by grace through faith and works?

The fact is scripture teaches 3 types of justification. By grace, by faith, and by works. It does not teach that I am justified by grace through faith. It teaches that I am justified by grace by God, thus I am an heir according to the hope of eternal life. This is done in accordance with God's foreknowledge, predestination, and calling, and it is accomplished by the righteousness of Christ being imputed to me. It then tells me that I can be justified by faith, and if I am I will have peace with God. It gives me an example of Abraham, after many long years of service to God, being justified by faith when he believed the promise of God. If Abraham wasn't eternally saved before that happened, then we have a servant of God bringing forth much fruit yet in a perishing condition, which is a clear violation of scripture. Then, James tells me I can be justified by works when I put my faith to work, giving me the example of Abraham when tried offering up Isaac.

Now, we see Christians all the time, born again children of God, that aren't doing the things they should be doing. They aren't trusting God and following God like they should. They aren't bringing forth fruit as they should. There are a lot of these in the USA right now. They'd rather enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season than experience the reproaches that come with living Christ-like. What about these folks? They stand just before God by grace, but they certainly don't have peace with God. They certainly aren't justified by works. Here's a news flash: not all that are justified by grace are going to be justified by faith and justified by works. The idea of being "justified by grace through faith" just doesn't work out biblically.

 

So do you hold that the elect are born saved or not?

Secondly I would suggest you go back and study justification and how it transpires.

James does not state that works themselves justifies, he is stating that faith without works is not true faith. THus it is not the 'works' themselves that justifies but the faith proves itself via that which it moves us to do as evidenced by his own words:

God did justify us by grace but that grace is entirely dependant upon and completely in Christ Jesus sacrifice. And the means by which the justication is given,according to scripture, is by faith. Since you hold to the doctrines of grace I would suggest reading some systematic theology by Grudem, or Erickson, or Packer. Or check out the Cannons of Dort, Westminster Confessions (short and long)

 

I assume nothing of the sort; up to this point, I simply assume that the Bible is reliable, will not contradict itself, and explicit statements it makes are true.

When it says at Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ESV) I take what it says as settled.

I dare say that YOU are the one making assumptions. You ASSUME that salvation is impossible without arising from baptism -- even though no passage says that.

If you were not so loyal to that assumption, you would see very clearly that your position would require a direct contradiction in Scripture.

Actually, no; I deny what you do with it.

The Scriptures are the Word of God; your inferences thereof are yours. God is God; you are not God. Many people in the Churches of Christ need to learn not to treat their inferences as if they are Scripture.

You add things to it that it never says. Even if we grant that the 1769 KJV of the verse is the way it should be translated, it still does not say the likes of `Everyone who fails to be baptized does not receive remission of sins.'

Granted it does not state the faith alone position.

It says what it says -- which is my position: "everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Maybe to you they are not, which would be unfortunate.

The moment I believed that Jesus Christ was Lord, I simultaneously understood that this meant I had to change my life to live according to His teachings.

How can anyone believe on Jesus Christ as Lord and not simultaneously repent? The notion is unimaginable to me, and seems downright ridiculous to me. If there is no repentance there is no faith.

I cannot imagine the sharp distinction you want to make.

Either way, Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) has to be true because the Bible teaches it.

No passage of Scripture you have brought up teaches the negation, no matter what you try to do with them.

I know that you insist `Not everyone that believeth on Him receives remission of sins. Faith does not include repentance. A believer on Jesus Christ must repent, then do this, then do that. Certainly not everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins.' If you are right, then you would have convinced me of only one thing: both you and I might as well put our copies of Scripture away and not `bother' with them anymore.

As I said before, if there is any way that a person can believe on Jesus Christ and not receive remission of sins, then Scripture contradicts itself and is unreliable.

As I said before, I reject that premise.

 

I've been asked to weigh in on this thread concerning Acts 2:38 from the standpoint of a Bible translator (into Japanese) and Greek teacher. Please forgive me that it is late in the evening in Japan and I don't have time to read the whole thread. Hopefully I can do that this weekend some time, maybe on Sunday afternoon our time.

My first point is that if eiV (eis, the preposition) here is used to mean "for the purpose of" (as the word is occasionally used) then it is an awfully weak usage, not really enough to build a doctrine of "faith plus baptism" IMO. Greek has a number of ways to declare purpose, with a "hina clause" (beginning with the conjunction ina) being probably the strongest. Eis would have to be the weakest in my view because of it's core meaning of "in the direction of...."

Secondly, A. T. Robertson (in my mind the greatest Greek scholar of modern times) points out in his Word Pictures that the preposition eis is very clearly used as "on account of" in Matt. 10:41 and 12:41, and again in his huge A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (p. 592) he refers to Deissman in showing how this usage ("on account of the name of...") occurs in the papyrii (non NT koine Greek writings).

The most important point that Robertson makes on p. 592 about Acts 2:38 is that "only the context and tenor of N. T. teaching can determine whether 'into,' unto or merely 'in' or 'on' ('upon') is the right translation, a task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian." So, baptismal regeneration can not be proven from Acts 2:38 (nor disproven, I admit).

To put it in other words, the doctrine of salvation does not rise and fall on Acts 2:38. It doesn't matter how many authorities you quote, how many Greek scholars weigh in on one side or another, the whole context of the NT must be studied.

There are so many passages against baptismal regeneration that I have no trouble at all rejecting it. For example, note Acts 3:19, where Peter once again preaches repentance but doesn't mention baptism at all! If baptism were part of Peter's Gospel, there is no way in the world he would have left it out so soon after Pentecost!

God bless all. Oyasumi nasai. ("Sleep well.")

John

 

John of Japan: I do not see what Acts 2:38 has to do with this discussion. I have already said to JSM17

JSM17 should have read that the translation is not a point of dispute. I suspect s/he had a reason for going into it, as I will explain.

Even as it was unnecessary, s/he went back into the translation of the passage. S/he quotes letters that are alleged to be from four Greek scholars. So what? He is referring to a prior thread where it was shown that translations into other languages -- whose grammatical structures allow closer fits with the Greek -- differ from the 1769 edition of the KJV here. These translations link equivalent of "repent" to "for the remission of sins" -- of course, repentance is included in faith; it is impossible to truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and not simultaneously repent of living outside His will. The directive to be baptized is inserted within the directive to repent for remission of sins.

I am not denying the competence of the four Greek scholars, but I also am not prepared to deny the competence of translation committees whose work has been well-received in other parts of the world. I think a consensus of Bible translations which are well-received in any part of the world trumps a handful of letters from four scholars. S/he selectively quotes me from another thread, then calls on me to get letters from these people -- knowing that many of them are long dead. Also, why would I need to? I can READ their translation and know EXACTLY how they thought the verse should have been translated -- I can read them in translations well-received in two parts of the world. I dare say JSM17 is grandstanding, trying to draw attention from two facts:
1) there are multiple ways Acts 2:38 can be correctly translated which affect meaning, so the way s/he prefers may not be correct,
2) four scholar do not exactly refute a centuries-old consensus of well-received Bible translations in two parts of the world.

Still, as far as JSM17's intention goes, it does not matter how the passage is translated. No translation supports what s/he wants it to do: make it say the likes of `Everyone who fails to be baptized does not receive remission of sins.'

So far, there is simply no known translation of Acts 2:38 that says the likes of `Anyone who fails to be baptized does not receive remission of sins.' JSM17 and people who think similarly take one way of translating Acts 2:38, add inference to it, and treat that inference as Scripture.

JSM17 wants to talk as much as possible about Acts 2:38 and inference thereof, even if it is unnecessary fluff. S/he is hoping to bury a very important passage: Acts 10:43 expressly says "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

JSM17's position is that if a believer on Jesus Christ fails to be baptized, then s/he will not receive remission of sins. This creates a scenario where a person who believes on Jesus Christ does not receive remission of sins. In other words, Acts 10:43 would be negated.

JSM17 has seen that passage many times. S/he responds by trying to draw attention away from that passage. S/he apparently has no way to explain how the position s/he advocates can be true when the focus is on Acts 10:43; s/he tries to get everyone's focus off this passage, as s/he just did here.

Obviously, JSM17's position is not possible without Scripture contradicting itself. JSM17's position and Acts 10:43 cannot both be true. Acts 10:43 says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV), and it has to be true because the Bible teaches it.

 

Both Acts 2:38 and 10:43 are true.

Your inference of Acts 2:38 which contradicts Acts 10:43 is false.

You take one translation of Acts 2:38, add inference to it, and treat your inference as if it was Acts 2:38. The inference: `Everyone, including believers on Jesus Christ, who fails to be baptized shall not receive remission of sins.'

You cannot treat inference like Scripture. You keep doing that. Your inference of Acts 2:38 is not Acts 2:38; rejecting your inference of Acts 2:38 is not rejecting Acts 2:38. God is God; you are not God. The Scriptures are the Word of God; your group's inferences are not the Word of God. Regardless of whether or not our inferences of Scripture are correct, we mortals cannot treat our inferences of Scripture like Scripture.

Without Acts 10:43, your inference might be valid. With Acts 10:43, it is impossible. Acts 10:43 says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

As you know, I believe the Portuguese translations handle the Greek of Acts 2:38 better than English translations are even capable of due to the nature of English. I believe Acts 2:38 obeys Luke 24:47 "repentance for| remission of sins should be preached in his name " (NASB|ASV). I believe Acts 2:38 does exactly this, while inserting a directive to be baptized. Still, the repentance is linked with remission of sins. As a genuine faith that Jesus Christ is Lord must simultaneously include repentance from living outside His will, Acts 2:38 harmonizes perfectly with Acts 10:43.

You disagree. You insist that the 1769 KJV, which differed from prior editions on Acts 2:38, reflects the best way the verse should have been translated. If you want to hold that position, and not be contrary to Acts 10:43, then you must still accept that all believers on Jesus Christ who fail to be baptized receive remission of sins. One option would be that they receive remission of sins after their natural lives.

Regardless, you simply cannot hold that there is any scenario that a believer on Jesus Christ does not receive remission of sins. For this to be possible, Acts 10:43 would have to be false.

There are two facts that you cannot get away from:

1) Acts 2:38 does NOT say anything like `Everyone, including believers on Jesus Christ, who fails to be baptized shall not receive remission of sins.'

2) Acts 10:43 DOES say "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).​

 

The Net Bible:

2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized82 in the name of Jesus Christ83 for84 the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.85

Footnote 84 says:

Here is an obvious clear explanation both of what the verse does mean, and why the verse cannot mean baptismal regeneration as the COC's teach.

I can make a good argument for the "causal" sense of the preposition eis.

The editor of the Net Bible thinks the case for that position is weak, and thus presents all other cases. Either way the weakest case, and the one that is unscriptural is to make baptism a part of salvation, or salvation by works.

 

Removing highlighting

No need; you already know what I think the passage teaches. You are only feigning ignorance; it is unfortunate you have chosen to use deceptive style.

By the way, the passage actually says this:
πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε φησιν και βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων επι τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου εις αφεσιν των αμαρτιων υμων και λημψεσθε ληψεσθε την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος.

As you already know, I believe that the 1769 edition of the KJV, and translations that follow it here, do not handle the passage as well as could be done.

A translation that handles the verse well is as follows: "Pedro então lhes respondeu: Arrependei-vos, e cada um de vós seja batizado em nome de Jesus Cristo, para remissão de vossos pecados; e recebereis o dom do Espírito Santo" (VRA).

The reader would be misled by you; as you are well aware, I do not believe the 1769 KJV, NKJV, or similar translations have the best handling of the verse.

You are apparently hoping to hide that fact. You are apparently hoping to mislead the reader into thinking I would base my understanding of Acts 2:38 on the NKJV -- when you know I do not.

No surprise. I am not the only entity about whose words you would like people to have an inaccurate perception.

I noticed that you did not quote #2 -- you quoted #1 only. You want to keep the reader from noticing a part of God's written Word.

#2 refers to Acts 10:43. I do not have to ask you what you think it means. You evidently know what that verse means; that is why you repeatedly try to take the reader's attention away from it.

What is it about Acts 10:43 that keeps you trying to divert attention away from it? The answer is what it says: "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).