Baptism prior to the 1520s

Eric B,

How do you figure that working for minimum wage for a month EARNS 5 million dollars? Are you with the Federal Govt?

No, the job EARNED $824. An insignificant amount compared to the reward of meeting the condition set for the reciept of the inheritance. There would be no boasting of EARNING the 5 million.

The pattern of "Do this, and I'll give you that" is seen throughout the Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments. God has always offered blessings or cursings, according to His peoples' obedience or rebellion. The things He asks of us are miniscule compared to what He offers in return for our obedience.

Take me and my sins, as an example. In my former conversation, I was guilty of blasphemy, adultery, fornication, drunkenness, lying, covetousness, thievery, loving the things of this world, and rebellion against the rule of God, in general.

Then, I repented of those things, and became guilty of vain worship in the denominational world, still bearing the burden of my sins, but being told that I was forgiven.

Finally, after much searching, with the Bible as the final authority, I obeyed the gospel by being baptized for the remission of sins. Such a small thing to ask in order to receive Divine relief as the burden of my soul was washed away! Not just because I was baptized, (for I had been baptized before, under false teaching), but because I just did what God commanded.

I know it doesn't make much sense. That's the whole point of Biblical faith. God asks us to do things that don't make sense to us, in order to receive that which we have need of. Faith is taking God at His word.

The widow of Zaraphath needed food. God provided her need, but in order to receive His provision, she had to give away the last bit of food she had. It didn't make sense, but she obeyed by faith.

Without obedience, faith is worthless.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

No you are entirely wrong. The exact opposite is taught all throughout the Bible. The theme is God's grace to sinful man. God gives freely of the riches of his grace to undeserving man who does absolutely nothing to earn, and in fact could do nothing to earn his grace.

Romans 4:4-8 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

God will not impute sin to those who have put his trust in Him. It has nothing to do with baptism. David was not baptized.
The thief on the cross was not baptized.
Saul himself was not baptized until well after he trusted Christ on the road to Damascus.
Paul said that baptism was not important him. "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel," he said, putting a clear differentiation between the gospel that saves and baptism which does not.
Only faith in the finished work of Christ can save.
Faith in baptism, or that the waters of baptism can save is pure pagan superstition.
DHK

 

No you are entirely wrong. The exact opposite is taught all throughout the Bible. The theme is God's grace to sinful man. God gives freely of the riches of his grace to undeserving man who does absolutely nothing to earn, and in fact could do nothing to earn his grace.

Romans 4:4-8 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

God will not impute sin to those who have put his trust in Him. It has nothing to do with baptism. David was not baptized.
The thief on the cross was not baptized.
Saul himself was not baptized until well after he trusted Christ on the road to Damascus.
Paul said that baptism was not important him. "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel," he said, putting a clear differentiation between the gospel that saves and baptism which does not.
Only faith in the finished work of Christ can save.
Faith in baptism, or that the waters of baptism can save is pure pagan superstition.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Saul was baptized to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16). Why did Saul still have his sins after believing and praying for 3 days? Remember, he was told to go into the city and it will be told to you what you MUST do (Acts 9:6). The first thing he was TOLD TO DO, was arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. I encourage anyone to find scriptual evidence his sins were washed away on the road to Damascus. The only reason people claim this is because it fits their view of salvation, not because of any scriptual record of the event.

When you say the thief on the cross was not baptized, how do you know? John baptized alot of people. But, it doesn't matter. He lived and died under the old law. I can explain this further if you don't understand.

You said, "Paul said that baptism was not important him." That statement is certainly unscriptural, or I certainly can't find it. If it were unimportant, why did he baptize some of them? Paul preached the gospel and it was of no significance who did the baptizing.

Paul certainly understood the importance of baptism. Notice what Paul said some of them were saying, "I am of Paul" or that they belonged to Paul (I Cor 1:12). Notice what conditions Paul put on them belonging to him in verse 13. Paul would have had to die for them and they would have had to be baptized in his name, then they would have belonged to Paul. Since Christ did die for us and we are baptized in his name, we belong to Christ.

To say that Paul said baptism was unimportant is incorrect. When read in context, he did baptize some of them but since they were divided, following men, he was glad that he had not baptized more of them, because there would be more saying, "I am of Paul". This passage shows the importance of baptism, rather than diminish it. It does not say or even remotely hint that any there said, "I am of Paul" because Paul preached to them and they believed the gospel.

Paul tells why he was glad he did not baptize more of them in verse 15, "lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name." Paul realized the importance of baptism.

You said, "Faith in baptism, or that the waters of baptism can save is pure pagan superstition." No, it is not. It is scriptural.

Acts 2:38 clearly states that baptism is "for the remission of sins". Not because of (hoti) but in order to obtain (eis). This was clearly water baptism. Make fun of it all you want, but this truth will not change.

 

All:
Faith must be obedient to please God. Romans 15:26,27, Hebrews 11:6. A disobedient or inactive faith never pleases God. James 2:17-24,John 12:42-44. Belief is work, John 6: 27-29. Repentance is a work. Eph. 4, Acts 19. Confession is a work. Romans 10:9,10. Baptism is a work. Col. 2:12. Doing good is a work. Gal. 6;10. They are works of God that we must do. They are all forms of an obedient faith which is mandatory to be saved by the grace of God. These works are not something one brags about.Eph. 2:8,9, Titus 3:5. The one who has an obedient faith is surrendering himself to God through the one who died for him. Romans 5,6.

 

LOL! Wow - Is it even remotely concievable to a heathen looking in, that you two guys read the same Bible? I would be scared reading this.

Sorry, this just hit me oddly.

 

It is a simple thing Chadman. The COCer's have changed the meaning of faith to fit their own warped theology. Look in any dictionary. Faith is trusting, believing, confidence. It is not doing, or works. That has never been the definition of faith and never will.

Works are the product or the fruit of faith. But COC say that faith isdoing or works. This is where they are very wrong, and very confused.
DHK

 

Agreed DHK, but like I said, from the outside looking in, we Christians appear to have no clue. We all have access to the same Holy Spirit, and it is pretty crystal clear somebody, a lot of bodys, are missing the boat.

 

(Cringe)...why do people say things like this? Paul never once said that in the Bible. You are twisting stuff around. You don't need to twist. It is what it is DHK. Paul never said that, rather he himself was baptized, did baptize, so that is kind of off-the-wall remark. You know, you make some good points, then you say stuff like that?

See, this just drives me crazy, those kind of statements, when you consider Jesus told the Apostles to go and Baptize people in the Great Commission. Jesus' vote is in on the importance of Baptism. Plus, when we see the first thing Paul did after Damascus was get Baptized...it colors your posts with a hint of frustration. It looks like you are trying to convince yourself with this type of literary technique.

All that matters on Baptism bottom line is what is does or does not do. The text does not, and never has, and never will literally support our Evangelical position, so you just have to concede that they have a reason to believe what they believe. The text does support a forgiveness postion. It takes no genius to see that. It is really obvious.

But we don't always believe everything literally, so take that position and make your points well.

See, we are in the unenviable postion on this topic, have been for as long as I was a Christian, of supporting WHY we don't take some of the text on baptism literally. We do that for a LOT of other stuff too, nothing new.

These guys have not warped anything from my viewpoint. Christians from all periods in recorded history have held their type of postion in this regard. We, starting at the Reformation, are bringing the real truth to the world, so it is US who have to make our case. And when we do, and the text does not support us literally, it is actually the RCC folks who are correct that we are looking at Baptism in a new way.

Nothing wrong with that, it is the truth. The truth should be shouted to the world. But you make it sound like these guys made this stuff up and it's somehow new or novel. It is not new or novel. The Church has been in error based on a literal redering of these passages since the first Apostles died. Until the Reformation of course.

You know, I guess I just want literary honesty. We are what we are, now make our case to the world.

 

I explained this. There are basically TWO earnings, from TWO different people. No, he did not earn 5 Million from the employer (the govt.) Someone else decided to pay additionally for working that job.

And that is PRECISELY the contrast between the OT, and the New. The Israelites had all of those promises of blessings and curses, and God provided them with the intructions (the "grace", as you call it), but what did they continuously earn? The curses! By copying that pattern into the NT, you are just turning it into another curse! (Gal.3:10)

So you repent of one thing, come to Christ, but find you still lack something else. So do you NOW think you are finally doing everything PERFECTLY? IF not, then you are actually still in the same predicament as when you were supposedly, still under false teaching! So where does it stop? This is precisely what your gospel consistently misses.

Once again, appealing to "it doesn't make sense, but it is by faith" doesn't cut it. It has to be faith in the right thing. Once again, this baptism-in-exchange-for-salvation transaction IS what MAKES SENSE to you, and to man's fallen nature in general. IT is BY FAITH that we "enter His rest" by "ceasing from [one's] labors"--meaning trusting in those works for salvation. (Heb.4)

All agree with this. (except for maybe the "Belief is work" argument)But we cannot tie saving faith to any physical work, because we do none of them perfectly or consistently. Work is the manifestation of faith, not the definition of it!

 

Eric:
Jesus said our faith is a work. Read it for yourself. By all means, do not take my word for it. John 7:27-29. Jesus was asked what MUST WE DO to works the works of God. Jesus replied, This is the work of God that you BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent. I might add this was also connected with getting to heaven. Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for eternal life which the son will give for him hath God sealed.

 

Heb 11 talks more about faith and gives more examples of faith, than any other book. It not only defines it, it gives examples of what it is.

Again, why would anyone need to look it up in a dictionary when God has already defined it? The Only motive I can think of is if the dicitonary supported the desired position.

Yes, these are O.T. examples recorded in the N.T. Notice in Heb 11:6, is says without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. What kind of faith? He then goes on to give example after example of people who trust God enough to obey him. The bible calls that faith.

Heb 11:30 says, By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

When your definition of faith has the walls coming down, then you have a biblical definiton of faith.

When you understand biblical faith, the statements in Gal 3:26-27 make sense and fit completely with Eph 2:8-9 and James 2.

 

(Cringe)...why do people say things like this? Paul never once said that in the Bible. You are twisting stuff around. You don't need to twist. It is what it is DHK. Paul never said that, rather he himself was baptized, did baptize, so that is kind of off-the-wall remark. You know, you make some good points, then you say stuff like that?
</font>[/QUOTE]Because it is true. But let me clarify so that others will have a better understanding.
First, baptism in and of itself is very imporant.
It is in the Great Commission, commanded by Jesus, himself.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (ASV)

Notice that the ASV more accurately translates the word "teaching" as "discipling" giving the sense that a person must be saved before he is baptized. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation, but always comes after salvation, as an outward sign of that which was done inwardly at salvation. So this is a command by Jesus not to be ignored. It is important.

Now to Paul's ministry. What was Paul's miinistry. Paul's ministry was the preaching of the gospel. He was a pioneer missionary. He set up churches of saved individuals, and apparently after one was appointed the pastor of the church, that pastor did the baptizing of the new converts, not Paul.

Therefore Paul says in 1Cor.1:

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

The church had to start somewhere. It seemed to start with the ones that Paul mentioned: Crispus and Gaius, whom he baptized, and then those in the household of Stephanus.
Remember that the church of Corinth grew to be a very large church--hundreds if not over a thousand members. Paul is speaking of just a handful of people that he baptized: a half dozen to a dozen at the most.

Then he says the most remarkabel thing:
Summed up: Baptism isn't the important thing here. It was not important to his ministry.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

Christ did not send him to baptize. Get that. It is important. Paul did not baptize the majority of his converts. They were saved but not baptized. That is not what Paul was called to do. He did not baptize. He was not called to baptize. Baptism is different than preaching the gospel. It is not part of the gospel. It doesn't save, does not have the power to save, cannot was away sins or remit sins. Paul states this very clearly.
He was sent to preach the gospel, not baptize. The gospel could be preached and was preached without baptism. Baptism was not part of the gospel.

The gospel he defines in 1Cor.15:1-4 as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is belief in that gospel that saves--that gospel and none other.

He says in Gal.1 that if any man bring any other gospel than the gospel that I have brought to you let him be accursed. Be aware of putting baptism into the gospel. Be aware of saying that baptism saves or remits sin. It does not. Your argument here is with God. Paul has made it very clear. I have not yet found any refutation of these Scriptures. All that believe in baptismal regeneration must depend on the Book of Acts or the gospels--books of history and not of doctrine to defend their petty doctrines.
DHK

 

You have talked abuot faith. You have skirted the issue. You won't give a definition of faith--not a Biblical definition of faith, nor a secular definition of faith. You are content to rely on examples of men of faith, without understanding what faith is. Look up faith in a dictionary, and then you will have a better understanding of Hebrews 11. Find out first what faith is.
Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
DHK

 

Eric B,

The reason the Israelites continually reaped curses is that they consistently were disobedient to God. In the times when they actually followed the commandments of God, they were blessed.

The OT was a shadow, or pattern of the NT (Heb 10:1).

The OT shadow of blessings for obedience and cursings for rebellion was cast by the reality of blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience in the NT.

The shadow of a thing neccessarily has the same form of the thing that casts the shadow.

You started out right, and then lost track. Let me explain. You correctly stated that I repented of one thing, and came to Christ, but were still lacking something else.

In leaving my former lifestyle, I did, in fact, come to Christ, and I was told by the preacher that my sins had been forgiven.

But sins forgiven is a spiritual blessing, is it not? Do you know where all spiritual blessings are? They are "in Christ" (Eph 1:3). So there I was, having come to Christ, but still outside of Christ, yet being told that I possessed a spiritual blessing that was only found "in Christ".

How does one get "into Christ"? How does one gain entrance into the body, the church, the kingdom, of (belonging to) Christ?

1 Cor 12:13 says we are baptized into one body.

Eph 1:22, 23 tells us that His body is the church.

Acts 2:38, 41, and 47 demonstrate that those who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins are added to the church.

John 3:3-5 tell us that unless one is born again, born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Rom 6:3-5 show that one is baptized "into Christ".

Gal 3:26, 27 state that one becomes a child of God by faith when he is baptized "into Christ".

Coming to Christ is not enough. All spiritual blessings, including salvation, are "in Christ". Baptism is the step of obedient faith which places one "in Christ" where are found all spiritual blessings.

Correct. Man's efforts to do enough good works to be pleasing to God are futile. Man cannot come up with his own plan of redemption. That's what Titus 3:5-7 speaks of,

5 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;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Remember, It is not I, but the Bible that says the grace of God is what teaches us how to be saved (Titus 2:11-15).

So, no, one cannot be saved by doing good works. At the same time, one cannot be saved unless he is obedient to the commands of God (Heb 5:8, 9).

The church of Christ did not author the idea of baptism for the remission of sins. The Christ of the church did.

Come now, Eric! That could be used as a cop-out to avoid attempting to do ANYTHING that God commands. Do you ever preach? do you preach perfectly? If not, maybe you should stop. how ridiculous is that logic?

The relationship of Christ to His church is comapred to the marriage relationship (Eph 5:32). Are we perfect husbands? Are our wives perfect? Should people never get married since nobody's perfect? NO!

As husbands and wives, we are to be FAITHFUL, not perfect. Likewise, with being (or becoming) a Christian, we are to be faithful to Christ, He knows we are not perfect.

The Bible says that works perfect, or make complete, our faith. Without works, our faith is dead.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

DHK thanks for the reply. Your entire explaination with the Scriptures, demonstrates at most, that Paul had a priority with regards to Baptism. He never stated directly, nor does the Bible, state that...

You infer this indirectly. But if you look at the whole Bible, Baptism, no matter how you think of it's significance, is very important. Even for a Baptist. It is the very word of God. Our words and banterings on the matter will never nullify what is there in the Bible.

In this case, I'll take Jesus' words as they were offered. Jesus commanded it. It is important.

Hehe, I know nothing will convince you of this, but in this case, I have to go with the Bible. Talk about rippiing Christianity up into little boxes, each seperate, well this is an example of that very thing.

I mean, the very first public proclamation of the Gospel in Acts 2, the important stuff was there, including repentance, and baptism, Just like Jesus commanded. Not sure how one can really reduce it's significance. Just do it and worry about what happened later.

 

And look what it says: This is the work of God that you BELIEVE". That is in a totally different category from some other PHYSICAL works that we do of our own power.

And overall, what was the entire assessment of the record of Israel? Disobedience and the curse of judgment of the old system and its temple shortly after the NT&gt;
Why? What was the difference between them and us? Was it simply that God gave them the wrong laws? the 7th day instead of the first? sacrifices instead of communion? Curcumcision instead of baptism? Or was there a problem in man, that he could not be obedient consistently? Was God overall happy that some Israelites, or the nation in general obeyed sometimes? Or is His standard perfection?

So it's the same exact system, only nopw, the blessings and curses have been upgraded to salvation and eternal damnation? We are back and forth between them just like the Israelites? You call that "Good News"? It sounds WORSE to me!
The blessings and curses of the OT foreshadow blessing and curses for obedeince in the NT, but this has nothignt o do with salvationm. As we often say; we are saved only by grace, but receive or lose rewards by our works. So yes, in that respect, and ONLY that respect it is an exchange of "do this and I'll give you that". But we cannot extend this to salvation, because NOBODY would make it.

Sorry, there is no such thing as coming "to" Christ; but not being "in" Christ. When we speak of "coming to Christ", we mean being "in" Him. By one spirit are we all immersed into the Body, and water was only to be a symbol of this, not the reality itself! He is the one who comes TO us, and stands outside knocking on the door. We don't come to Him and stand outside knocking, and have to do something else to get in. You have it all backwards, there!

Once again, you are reading your own meaning into that passage. Grace is not instructions on how to something in which God demands perfection, and nobody can do perfectly (Gal.3:10). By God's GRACE, we can have our sins washed away by believing, and being immersed into Christ's Body. THEN we are to "deny ungodliness", etc., out of LOVE for God (1 John 4), not to gain salvation.

And since "faithful" is defined by doing the commands; what is "Faithful"? Once again; Just as long as you are trying? In imperfect human relationships, this might be considered faithful; but do we bring God's standard down to ours, and say God just accepts us as long as we are trying? Then once again, where do we draw the line? What aboput someone who tried to be baptized, but just couldn't for some reason?
Do you see how shaky it all becomes? It has to be grace through faith?

We all agree with this. But we cannot judge someone because they lack a particular deed.

 

Eric B,

bmerr here. Before we continue, I want to tell you how much I have appreciated our conversation thus far. I'm sure your time is as dear to you as mine is to me, and we've both spent quite a bit of it to this point. I hope we agree that it is time well spent.

More than anything, I appreciate the thought you have put into your comments, and the fact that you have not merely stooped to the name-calling and cries of "heresy" that so many are prone to. When that happens, reasonable conversation is all but impossible.

That said, sir, let us continue.

Something worhty of notice in John 6:28, 29 is the fact that the people were the ones asking to do the works of God. Jesus told them that to believe on him whom He hath sent was the work of God that they were to do.

Your comment seems to suggest the idea that even our belief in Christ is dependent upon God giving us faith, perhaps by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon our hearts.

This is something I have heard taught by some in the religious world. If I have read too much into what you said, it was not intentional.

However, if my understanding of your words are correct, and you are advancing the idea that God gives us faith, since we cannot even believe on our own, consider the following.

God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). If it is the case that we need a direct operation of the Spirit in order for us to believe, and without this divine work we are incapable of having faith, how is it that all men are not saved?

What I mean is, why would God send His Spirit to open the heart of one man to the gospel, but deny Him to another? On what basis would He choose?

Secondly, Rom 1:16 tells us that the gospel is "...the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth...". If the Holy Spirit had to be directly involved, then the gospel would not be the power, but a power.

Do you see what I mean? For one to be saved and not another would eventually be because God sent the Holy Spirit to the one, but not the other.

Excellent question. You know, for the longest time, I always pictured OT Israel as "superheros of faith", all running around saying "Yes LORD", "Right away LORD", "We'll get right on it LORD". As I've grown older and studied for myself, I realize that they were just as hard-headed and stupid as we often are today! I'm still not sure if I should be encouraged or disheartened by that fact!

Getting back to your question though, no, the fault was not with God. Heb 8:7-8 says,

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Also, Ps 19:7, 8 says,

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The statutes of the LORD are fight, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

So, no, the fault under the OT was not with God or His laws, but with the Israelites.

The problem is definitely in man, but not that man cannot obey God faithfully, but that man often times will not be faithful.

I'm sure you're familiar with the view of man advanced by John Calvin that states that man is born totally depraved and is incapable of doing anything that is pleasing to God. It is a view held by many, and though John Calvin held many beliefs that were well-grounded in truth, this one is not one of them.

We don't have to get real deep into this here (maybe we could start another thread, if you want), but let me give just a couple of verses that demonstrate that it is within man's capability to obey, but often not within man's will.

Matt 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Luke 9:23, 24 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

It's a question of submitting one's will to God's.

No no! It IS good news! Under the NT, we have a "...better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (Heb 8:6).

The main thrust of the book of Hebrews is the fact that the NT under Jesus Christ is superior to the OT under Moses. Better sacrifice, better priesthood, better everything.

Under the NT, we have liberty. For example, in the mater of giving, Israel was required to give a tenth, or a tithe of their increase. (Actually, I think it totalled up to about 30% after all was said and done.)

Under the NT, we are commanded "Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him..." (1 Cor 16:2), and "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7).

Not that one shouldn't or couldn't tithe, but the amount is left up to us, so long as we give according to God's prospering of us.

Aside from that, the fact is that salvation and damnation were at stake for Israel, too. What options did they have regarding pardon for sins? They had the OT sacrificial system, {which had to be accompanied by a contrite heart), and faith in the promises of God, that one day, the Messiah would come.


That's about all I can do for now. My pillow is urgently calling to me. I hope all is well with you and yours. Talk to you later.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

No; I am not Calvinist. In fact; a couple of times I was going to mention this, as your argument that "faith is a work" is precisely what they use to say that it is out of reach to man, and therefore it is His "gift" to some, but is withheld from others. But I didn't really want to get into that here. My answer to them was "But what He is saying is that in order to do the works of God, one must first believe in His Son, who they saw doing those works. And as a 'work' it is still credited to God, rather than the man doing a 'work' in order to 'save himself' or otherwise contradict faith alone. First of all, nobody denies that salvation is initiated by God, and without any type of call on His part, man would be unable to find life, let alone do God's works".

That's precisely the point of the whole lesson of the OT. there were some faithful we look up to, but overall, the people could not keep the Law, and thus were not justified by it, but only condemned. But we have Christ, so there is nor eason to be disheartened, unless one is simply trying to repeat the ways of the OT!

But once again, why "will" he most often not? The wrong laws? The examples you showed show it was man, but one of them also says "if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second". The covenant itself was inadequate; because it only gave them the Law, but did not address what exactly man's problem was. So for a new covenant to just rehash the law by changing days and modes of propitiation and initiation will not solve the problem, and thus not be "better". If that was it, man still "will not" always obey, and thus remain largely condemned, and it won't be a "better promise". People still will have no promise of Heaven. So the "better" covenant is not based on works, but faith, and then works follow as a response of love.

 

bmerr here. Okay, good. You're not a Calvinist (whew!). I really don't like "labels", and I do my best to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I was not aware that they used John 6:28, 29 to support their doctrine, though I can see how it might be twisted to that effect. Even so, I think we're still not quite agreed on what those verses say.

My take on them is that the people wanted to do works like Jesus was doing (Miraculously producing food, healing, etc). They had followed after Him from the other side of the sea of Galilee [or Tiberias] (6:22-25).

Jesus told them that the work of God that they were to do was to believe on Him. It was the work of God, not because God did it for them, but because God commanded it of them.

I may be off, but that's how I read that verse.

I still say that the Israelites could have kept the Law faithfully, if they had wanted to. You yourself mention the fact that there were some who were faithful. If those few were, then the rest could have been, but they chose not to be.

Likewise, under the NT, anyone CAN be faithful to Christ, but sadly, few choose to be. Matt 7:21-23 states this fact pretty clearly.

We've got to realize that there are always at least two sides to any covenant. The OT was a covenant between Jehovah and the nation of Israel. God's end of the covenant was held up perfectly, since He is, after all, God.

The other party in the covenant was the Israelites, people just like you and I, and the fault in the OT was in them, not in God's Law.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Notice the two parties represented in Heb 8:7, 8. "Them", and "He". The fault was in "them", so "he" said "...I will make a new covenant..."

God gave Israel instructions on how to live for Him, with each other. Not one command was impossible for them to keep. God never asks of man that which is impossible for man to do. Sometimes difficult? Yes, but not impossible.

From your point of view, just what exactly is man's problem? I'm very interested in your response, as it will help me to understand where you're coming from.

Eric, from the beginning, man has remained largely condemned, for the same reason men are condemned today: they refuse to submit to the righteousness of God, choosing instead to come up with their own plan of salvation, their own way to please God (Rom 10:3).

God has never left man in the dark as to how to be acceptable to Him. God has always given grace for man to have faith in. Man has, and unfortunately will, consistently chosen to ignore the grace of God.

It is possible for man to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1).

I can go with that to a point. The NT is not based on the works of the law (Rom 3:20), but on the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 16:26).

I've made mention of it before, but I don't think it can be overemphasized, that faith is made complete by the works it produces. Unless and until one's faith (belief) manifests itself in the form of appropriate works, it is of no effect.

It's the equivalent of knowing what to do, but not doing it. Until what ought to be done is done, the knowledge of what to do is of no effect. It is vain. Simply knowing that Jesus died for our sins is not enough. We must demonstrate our faith by doing what He has commanded.

I think it would be worth our while to do a study on works in the NT sometime.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Then there is no gain in this covenant over the last one. The instructions have simply changed, then, but man is still largely incapable of consistently "choosing" to be faithful.

I was not saying there was any moral "fault" with God's covenant. Clealy the moral fault was with Israel. But still, the OC was deficient somehow, if it had to be superseded with a "better" covenant. But so far, it seems the new covenant is no different than the old one, because in both man is able to be faithful, but mostly fails.

Not one is impossible. But all of them all the time (God's true standard) is quite a different story! THAT is where the problem is. (to answer your question). NOW, we're getting somewhere!

God's offer of salvation is as much by grace as the ctual salvation itself (He seems to be talking to people he prays "to be reconciled to God" (5:20)) No, we do not lose salvation over and over again from not doing good enough. For then, we would never have been saved in any real sense to begin with. Once again, where is the line drawn?

All that's true, but once again, we will never this side of eternity, do it perfectly/consistently. So our salvation cannot be based on performance. Works are evidence of saving faith, not another name for it.