Saved by faith and the sinner's prayer

Snitzelhoff wrote,

I have explained to you what the Greek text says. Now I guess that I am going to have to explain to you what the NASB, 1995, says. The NASB, 1995, reads as follows:

38. Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The second person plural pronoun in the genitive case, “of you,” appears twice in the Greek text of this verse. In the first instance, it is plural to agree with the distributive singular “each one.” (In the English sentence, “I have a Bible for each one of you,” the pronoun “you” is the genitive plural). In the second instance in verse 38, the second person plural pronoun in the genitive case is plural to agree with “sins.” Therefore, the NASB is saying,

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of the sins of you; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

From my perspective, this is elementary grammar. From your perspective, it is apparently complicated. It might be helpful for you to talk about this with a high school or college English grammar teacher.

 

The concept of baptism for the remission of sins is a concept that predates the New Testament by centuries. In the New Testament, repentance and water baptism and forgiveness of sins go hand in hand,

Mark 1:4. John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 3:3. And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;

Acts 2:38. Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Was Peter’s theology a bit wrong at this point in his life? Perhaps it was, but I don’t believe that his theology on this point was any different when he wrote,

1 Pet. 3:20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

Perhaps Peter’s understanding of water Baptism was still incorrect when he wrote his first epistle. I do know for a fact, however, that most Baptists understand 1 Peter VERY differently than most mainstream Christian theologians. And they understand it VERY differently because their theology regarding salvation is VERY different.

I was baptized into the body of Christ very unexpectedly and very dramatically as I was walking down a busy street in a large city. A few months later, I was sitting in a pew in an Assembly of God church watching a number of people being baptized. I was dressed in my formal church attire, but the Holy Spirit impressed upon me to request water baptism on the spot—and the pastor baptized me by immersion in my church clothes. I did not feel any extra measure of God’s grace as a consequence, but I did know that I was obedient to the Holy Spirit.

For several years, I was the senior pastor of an interdenominational church, and I worked with a team of pastors representing several different denominations and theological systems. Our congregation included Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans. Our congregation also included people from the Assemblies of God, the Church of God of Cleveland Tennessee, the Salvation Army, several Baptist denominations, the Church of the Nazarene, the Four Square Church, and other Christian bodies. And no, we did not convert them to my personal interpretation of the Bible or to anything other than a closer walk with Christ. From both my associate pastors and my lay congregation, I learned that God is VERY flexible. We are all saved by grace through faith, but that grace is conferred in whatever manner God may choose, and it has been my experience that He usually “cooperates” with our denominational preferences. After all, God is a gentleman—and probably a gentleman with a sense of humor.

 

Snitzelhoff wrote,

I choose not to do so for the reasons that I have already stated.

 

Blackbird wrote,

Snitzelhoff asked me four times to answer a set of questions, but I could see very plainly from his posts that he did not have the necessary background in soteriology for me to answer the questions in a manner that he would accurately understand my answers. Therefore, I avoided his questions. However, he was VERY insistent that I answer his questions, and because of his insistence, I believed that a very tactful but straightforward and honest explanation as to why I was not answering his questions was appropriate. My other options would have been to rudely continue to ignore his questions or to lie to him about why I was not willing to answer them.

As for Romans 12:16, let’s take a look at a much more accurate translation,

16. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. (NASB, 1995)

I was associating with the lowly (if you wish to insult Snitzelhoff by applying that term to him). I was NOT being wise in my own estimation. My post had nothing at all to do with wisdom, but only with the level of knowledge of soteriology that is necessary to understand the terminology and concepts upon which my answers would necessarily be based.

Perhaps instead of criticizing my very careful and thoughtful approach to a difficult situation, you should either keep still or contribute to our understanding of the subject at hand.

 

"Very careful and thoughtful" approaches to difficult situations

will be monitored and edited as needed also!

Thank you and have a wonderful Christ centered day!!!

Bro. David
Moderator

 

If I do not "have the necessary background in soteriology," let it be shown by my lack of understanding of your answers to my questions. If I do not understand your answers, then I will ask you to clarify. If you answer, I can learn. I still have to wonder what you would answer a person inquiring of you how to be saved. Would you say that the person does not have sufficient background in soteriology to understand your answer?

Furthermore, what constitutes sufficient background in soteriology? What, besides the Bible, do I need to have read? Under whom, besides the Holy Spirit, do I need to have studied? What commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, etc. do I need to have consulted in order to have sufficient backrouund in soteriology? If you will not answer my question on the grounds that I do not have sufficient background on the subject, at least tell me what constitutes, in your mind, sufficient background.

Rather than calling me ignorant (however tactfully you wish to put it), help rid me of my alleged ignorance.

Michael

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
ituttut wrote,

Sacraments are NOT “works” to anybody but some misinformed Baptists and other misinformed Christians. Sacraments are rites of the Church and are taught to be channels through which the grace God is conferred from God to the believer.

But is our salvation today a “religion”? We by faith through our Lord Jesus Christ are baptized by the Holy Spirit. Catholic’s have a “religion” with all of their “religious rites”, just as did the Jew. We are Christians. The Apostles said they would not bother the Gentile’s, as their gospel of John the Baptist, and the “great commission” did not apply to us (me). But “troublers” (Judaizers) put doubt into the minds of Christians. Paul and Barnabas and others went to Jerusalem, and they all shook hands, and James (the Apostles agreeing) said they gave no such authority to those members that were telling the Gentiles they had to be circumcised, and adhere to rites of the Jewish religion. Those members of that “other gospel” was trying to move the Christian away from the “grace of Christ”, through faith, to that gospel that is by faith, (Galatians 1:6-7). Many “religions” with their “rites” continue this grace by faith approach.

I am not a “religious” person. I do not carry on me a “cross”, “rabbits foot”, “lucky penny”, “picture of some unknown person that some believe Looks Like Jesus Christ, or His Mom, or any other “object”. Again, “rites” are for the “religious” person. I will not be removed from the Grace that came to me Through My Lord Jesus Christ. Others, and I, just happen to be in a different part of the Body of Christ Jesus. I am Christian by the Grace of God our Savior, through My Lord Jesus Christ, belonging to a Baptist church. The Baptist teaches and will defend to the death that they are saved by the Grace of God Through faith, without a work. That is why I am Christian in a Baptist church. Once Saved Always Saved.

Canon VI On the Sacraments in General (Decrees of the Council of Trent, 1547) reads,

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema. [/qb]

Please furnish scripture for the sacraments of the New Law, and the grace each contains. Is the Grace in each sacrament equal, or some contain more grace than others. Do we add, or subtract the Grace from these sacraments to or from the Grace that comes through Jesus Christ? I have never seen the formula of how this type of Sacrament of the New Law works.

But even the Decrees of the Council of Trent did NOT degree that actual participation in the sacraments, not even the sacrament of water baptism, was necessary for salvation, but that the “desire thereof” was sufficient,

Yes, many desire to do “rites” in their religion.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Are they saying the same thing as said in Romans 3:27, ”Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.”?

Hence today we have the Romans Catholic doctrine of Baptism by Desire.

[/QUOTE]

You’re saying we brought this desire when we broke from the Catholic belief?

 

ituttut wrote,

I do not understand this question?

 

I have no doubt that many intolerant Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists feel that way, but I know for a fact that they do not all feel that way, and especially not those who are well educated, and I most certainly do not feel that way. I am a Baptist because my personal beliefs are shared by other (but certainly not all) Baptists. And I understand very well that if I was raised in a God fearing Lutheran home and graduated from a Lutheran seminary that I would in all likelihood be a Lutheran today rather than a Baptist. Are the Lutherans wrong? Are the Baptists right? I don’t know, but I choose to be a Baptist. Does it really matter? I don’t think so. My Lutheran friends are just as Christian is my Baptist friends. My personal observation is that God is much more concerned about our love and faithfulness to Him and our love and faithfulness to others than He is concerned about the difference between sacraments and ordinances.

</font>[/QUOTE]Amen!

I have Lutheran, Methodist (grandfather was a Methodist Minister), Catholic, and no telling what else I count as friends and acquaintances, and those that believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are saved. But our faith and hope is different than their faith and hope, even though our love could be the same. But is it? Do they love the Lord enough to give up their “religious rites”, trusting only in Him? Our friends may be as saved, but are they Christian saved, or do they need and require “signs” in their salvation?

I love the people, and I suppose they love me, but they sure don’t understand when we talk and they say we must believe the Bible, so we are to believe what James says, and we are to believe what Paul says. We have to believe one or the other. Why do I believe the gospel of Paul, and not the gospel of James to the Jew? Christ revealed His gospel to Paul while in heaven, seated next to His Father. James came to believe the “works” that Jesus did (John 10:37-38), and works to be done (Acts 21:19-20). This was acceptable for the Jew to come By faith in the works of God, by His wonderful Grace. for “..the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom", (I Corinthians 1:22).

We are headed for ecumenical thinking, and joining, where it will be much easier for those religions of “works” connected to their salvation to join each other - - - just what Antichrist is waiting for. But what of we that believe no such thing? I say No to compromising with those of “another gospel”. Even Peter came to knowledge and wisdom given to Paul, for Peter warns the Jew, ”As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.”

For Pete’s sake, why will we not see and understand Peter writing his Epistles just as Paul finished writing his Epistles, Paul’s last finished just before He died. Peter (and John) no longer preached the Jewish gospel of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”. Peter has now grown in Grace and knowledge of His Lord, as well as His Saviour (King-God) Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost revealed to Peter through Paul’s gospel their (the three) knowledge of the Father, and the Son. I Corinthians 12:6; 15:28. Christian faith, ituttut.

 

Agreed.

I was baptized in an Assemblies of God church, and my local Baptist church recognizes that baptism. Had I been baptized instead in a Lutheran church as a baby, that would not be an issue in my local Baptist church unless I sought ordination by that church (that is, if it occurred to them to ask me about it before ordaining me ).

</font>[/QUOTE]Point made, however even though Baptist churches are autonomous, can they be neglectful in their belief of “accountability”, of which “babes” cannot be?

 

I do not understand this question?

</font>[/QUOTE]I'm wondering what you meant by your statement. Please clarify in soteriology understanding so Snitzelhoff and I can gain this knowledge you have. We only have knowledge of His Word, and not much in theory. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

I think there is a benefit to "The Sinners Prayer".That benefit would be to solidify in the newly regenerated persons heart and mind what has already taken place.
It is my firm conviction that we who know something about Bible doctrine and theology spend way to much time trying to make salvation much more complicated than the Bible does.

 

Greetings

Without context as a guideline, Rom. 10:9-10 appears to require the two conditions of faith and confession as a requirement for salvation. However, this would counter all the previous teaching on justification such as: justification is not possible through human obedience (Rom. 1:19-3:19), justification based on Christ's righteousness (Rom. 3:20-31), Abraham's example of justification by faith apart from works or sacrament (Rom. 4), justification by faith leading to peace with God (Rom. 5:1), baptism only after justification but before sanctification (Rom. 6), and the Christian life lived in the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7-8). The previous chapters provide the appropriate context to understand the immediate passage.

The immediate passage begins with verse 9 where believing and confessing are related to salvation. In verse 10, believing and confessing are part of two distinct clauses. Edwards shows that these verses have the following chiastic relationship:

A that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (9a),
___B and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (9b).
___B' For with the heart one believes unto righteousness (10a),
A' and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (10b).


In A and A', Paul teaches that confession is associated with the mouth. The confession of A is to be compared only with the confession of A' where salvation is made eis swthrivan. The preposition eis has a wide semantic domain and good easily be translated with reference to the existing salvation. Mounce shows that Paul is referring to Isa. 8:13 and Isa. 45:23 where confession of Jesus is the equivalent of confession of YHWH. This confession would have no reference to sins and would be the equivalent of the heart-faith of B and B'. In B and B', Paul teaches that righteousness is associated with the heart. The salvation of B is to be compared only with the heart righteousness of B'. The mouth and the heart are differentiated just as confession and belief are differentiated. However, while faith and confession are distinct, they are still related. The first reference to faith is to the salvation resident in Jesus Christ. This secures eternal life. Faith's second reference is to acknowledge the righteousness that is imputed to believers. This second reference to Christ's righteousness forms the basis of sanctification which must constantly return to the benefits won by Christ. Calling upon the name of the Lord has many key aspects.

While confession is related to faith, only faith saves unto righteousness.

Lloyd

 

One of the very first steps in interpreting Roman 10:9 is to establish the correct interpretation of the first word in this verse in the Greek text. This word, hoti, can be correctly translated here either “that” or “because” [or “for”]. Upon the interpretation hangs the question of what is “the word of faith which we are preaching” (v. 8). Is it the words quoted from Deut. 30:14, "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART" or is it “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”?

-- King James Version
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

-- New King James Version
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

-- American Standard Version
Romans 10:9 because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved:

-- Revised Standard Version
Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

-- New American Standard Version
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

-- New American Bible
Romans 10:9 for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

-- New Revised Standard Version
Romans 10:9 because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

--English Standard Version
Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

Amen to both points. IMO we are saved by believing in Jesus Christ alone. The sinner's prayer developed over the centuries... not sure when it first became a part of evangelistic efforts, or the "invitation" as well. But I think it's within the past 200 - 300 years at most. (During the Great Awakening in the 1740s I wonder what they did.)

The point is that the invitation and the sinner's prayer is tradition. But that does not mean it is wrong to use them. The key is to ask ourselves if we are compromising any clear biblical principles.

According to my profs in my church history classes baptism quickly became something that was used to initiate people into the local body. For security reasons, as persecution became intense, they began to delay baptism for as long as 6 months until they were sure the conversion was genuine and not some spy. So I don't think we can take too much from what we get out of history here.

By the 3rd century many local bodies were baptizing infants, and most saw some spiritual significance to it. But what does God's Word say?

Bottom line, if we lead someone in a "sinner's prayer," we need to be careful to get it right. Today there are so many expressions used just because of tradition. We need to ask ourselves, "What does the Word say?"

FA

 

Hello again POB. Have to take exception with you here. Agree to the simplicity, but not to plead for Mercy while in the Body of Christ. This is not a prayer of the saved by the Grace of God today.

I believe we must first “weed out” that which is not relevant to we today, and that is what makes our statement to Him without complication so that even a child can understand.

I view the “Sinners Prayer” from another angle, or another dispensation of what was to be believed at one time. This prayer was pointed specifically to the Jew as we see in Luke 18:13, ”And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.” The Publican was such as a Chief Publican (Zacchaeus), and the lower echelon such as Matthew. Here is one of the “lost Tribes”, this one of the Tribe of Levi, has become one to be looked down upon by the Jew’s. But His Apostles are of the Tribes. This “sinners prayer” is before Pentecost. Would this continue to be what the Jewish sinner, or any other should pray?

Did Jesus Christ tell His Apostles to pray this prayer to receive the Holy Ghost for now the Kingdom was at hand, and could come? To enter into the blessings, to be “filled with the Holy Ghost”, Jesus did not say pray fervently, and keep at it until Pentecost. He said stay in Jerusalem (obey), and wait (obey) and you will receive the promise of the Father as I told you (Acts 1:4). So in that dispensation of God, after Pentecost to the Jew, I believe the “Sinners Prayer” only remained for the purpose and use of the Gentile.

But did this “Sinners Prayer” for the Gentile end also? I do believe so, for we see the next “dispensational” gospel is to appear not too long after Damascus Road. We see the Gentile Cornelius a faithful “Prayer” with works was heard of God, and by just believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ did he and all those of his household receive the Holy Ghost. The gospel to the Gentile now is “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved; not still pleading for mercy.

I must ask, is either of the above the way that we today are to obtain God’s mercy, and obtain the Spirit by whom places us into the Body of Christ? People can pray day and night their whole lives saying, look at me God and have mercy on me. Many people continue this practice, but God will say, I have left My Word for man, and you can find it in my Book. Also My servants have instructions for you, and if you will listen to them they will tell you today how to obtain my Mercy. They will tell you to quit saying this prayer and “believe on the name of My Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, and I will save you. If you don’t believe this then you can go to, well, to other’s that will tell you something else. The choice is presented, and we choose.

To me it is very simple. Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we will be saved. No questions and no doubt’s, only faith in the gospel from Christ Jesus in heaven. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

 

You and I must live in different dispensations from each other!

Either your post is a jumbled mess of mumbo jumbo and freakish theology from the Twilight Zone, or I don’t have a clue to the teachings in the New Testament regarding salvation.

 

Amen to both points. IMO we are saved by believing in Jesus Christ alone.

Amen! I see you have understanding also. This post may not enlighten you further, but perhaps in your enlightenment, I may be able to show from where the “light” comes, to others”.

The sinner's prayer developed over the centuries... not sure when it first became a part of evangelistic efforts, or the "invitation" as well. But I think it's within the past 200 - 300 years at most. (During the Great Awakening in the 1740s I wonder what they did.)

I don’t believe today this salvation of pleading for mercy from God the Father should have be “awakened” by any evangelistic effort. It only complicates the “simple” message of salvation to the “innocents”, and confuses the not so “innocents”.

The point is that the invitation and the sinner's prayer is tradition. But that does not mean it is wrong to use them. The key is to ask ourselves if we are compromising any clear biblical principles.

Well spoken, as this is of the “tradition” of men, and when it is we know it places into motion “compromises”. If we believe the message of Paul then we cannot believe the tradition of men. In Galatians 1:14-17 Paul was above most of His equals in the tradition of the Jews, but God in His grace called Paul to reveal the Son of God to us (me a heathen not before preached to). Paul didn’t go to Peter, John or James. God told Paul to get away from his people, and from the heathen (into the desert) so He could teach and hone him in the “grace commission”. This is the same thing God told Abraham; get away from your people, the heathen idol worshippers, for I will make a great nation of you, and I will bless all nations in you Abraham.

I see we (me) heathen Gentiles are blessed in Abraham, but who is it that tells how this was made possible, and explains it to us. Is it not Christ Jesus from Heaven? Was it Moses, David, John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, John, James or anyone other than our (my) Apostle to whom Christ chose to give this “dispensational gospel" (Ephesians 3)?

Dear God, I cannot not see how this plain Word of God is ignored by those we view as the smartest and brightest among us today. Romans 11:13, ”For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office”

In the Godhead, who is the Administrator, the one to give an “office” to preach His dispensational gospel to the whole world of “reconciliation”? Christ Jesus is this “Administrator” and He appointed Paul the “head of that office” here on earth. Did anyone question Christ on this matter? You bet. But Christ said, this is something you don’t understand Ananias, so go your way for I personally have chose him to “bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel”. Faithful Ananias went his way without further question, obeying the Word of God. This is faith by Ananias, without understanding. Do we understand it all. I don’t believe so, but this I do know, by the grace of God my Father, I come to Him through the faith of my Lord Jesus Christ. I find this in only One Gospel, and that is from the “office of Paul”, that “office furnished and given” by Christ from heaven.”

According to my profs in my church history classes baptism quickly became something that was used to initiate people into the local body. For security reasons, as persecution became intense, they began to delay baptism for as long as 6 months until they were sure the conversion was genuine and not some spy. So I don't think we can take too much from what we get out of history here.

Again agree, and I see nothing wrong with “water baptism” to separate us from the rest of the world, but it only complicates, and for some, believe salvation after all does save for it must be done only in the right mode (complete immersion) with just the right wording (In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit) – Hello out there all of you evangelical “World Council of Churches” advocates of the Baptist belief. Of what use is the “Baptist way of water baptism” if we are accepting all other “modes and forms of Water Baptism” to be correct? Does this not put us in the position of joining in with all other beliefs, some of which teach “water baptism” is to be included in process of our salvation, using infant baptism as a form of “bloodless circumcistion”? Wasn’t our original intent to show a “complete separation”? If not then what was the purpose of “water baptism” to join a Baptist church?

By the 3rd century many local bodies were baptizing infants, and most saw some spiritual significance to it. But what does God's Word say?

Bottom line, if we lead someone in a "sinner's prayer," we need to be careful to get it right. Today there are so many expressions used just because of tradition. We need to ask ourselves, "What does the Word say?"

FA </font>[/QUOTE]You by Faith alone have answered correctly - “What does the Word say?” If you will allow, I would like to add “What does the Word say to us today”? Christian faith, ituttut