The "Sinner's Prayer"

bmerr here. I guess one thought deserves another. For starters, we should define grace. Some might say "God's riches at Christ's expense". I can go along with that, but how is the grace of God manifested to man? How do we know of it, and how to respond to it?

At least one aspect of God's grace is the fact that He has provided the sacrifice for sins, and the record of the events leading up to and following that sacrifice. In short, He has given us the Bible.

In addition to Jesus as the sacrifice for sins, God has given man direction as to how we should respond to the message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Titus 2:11, 12 tells us that the grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men, and that it teaches us how we ought to live. So at least in part, the grace of God is manifested to Man in that we are taught, or instructed in what to do.

In Gen 6:8, we read that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." But how would Noah ever know of the grace he had found unless God manifested it to him? Just a few verses later, in 6:13, God warns Noah of the coming judgement, and gives him instruction on how to escape it. The grace of God toward Noah was manifested by God teaching Noah what to do to escape judgement.

In Heb 11:7, we read "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, (there's the grace) moved with fear, prepared and ark to the saving of his house: by the which he condemned the world, and became the heir of the righteousness which is by faith."

So Noah had both grace and faith, and was saved from judgement. But was he saved from judgement by grace alone? Was it by faith alone? Did God build the ark for Noah? Did Noah not have to do what was commanded by God? Obviously he did. Would Noah have escaped judgement if he had not done what was commanded by God? No he would have perished along with everyone else.

Now the Bible tells us that Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet 2:5). The Bible also difines righteousness as the commands of God (Ps 119:172).

So Noah, during the building of the ark, extended the grace of God, in the form of God's instructions, to the people around him. Unfortunately, they received the grace of God in vain, or to no effect (2 Cor 6:1).

Okay, grace and faith. We see that Noah had both, and that there were still things that he had to do to be saved.

This could be demonstrated from many OT examples which are given to us for our instruction (1 Cor 10:11). So how does this apply to grace and faith in the NT?

God, in grace, has given Man instruction on what to do to be spared from the coming judgement. What has He commanded?

The requirement for faith is unquestioned, so we need not prove what we all know to be true. Suffice it to say that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17).

How about repentance? Certainly faith must come before repentance, or else why would one repent? Jesus said in Luke 13:3, 5,

"I tell you, Nay: but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

In Acts 17:30, Paul tells us that God "...now commandeth all men everywhere to repent."

Very few have a problem with repentance, so let's move on.

To confess that Jesus is the Son of God is required. Again, few object to this condition of salvation. Rom 10:9, 10 are familiar enough that I don't think I need to type them out. If someone insists, I can do so later.

Also in Matt 10:32, 33, Jesus said,

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Gather which is in heaven.

In addition, we have the example of the eunuch in Acts 8:36-37.

Now we get down to the point of contention, namely, baptism. I honestly don't understand why so many "disconnect" here, but many do. Anyway, we should determine if a baptism of any kind is commanded as a condition of salvation. We can look at whether it's immersion in water or H.S. baptism later.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

John 3:5 "...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Acts 2:38 "...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Acts 8:35-36 Then Phillip...preached unto him Jesus...and the eunuch said...what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Command implied by request).

Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (see Acts 2:38)

Acts 16:32-33 "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord...And he took them...and was baptized, he and all his, straightway."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 22:16 "...arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

In conclusion, Eph 2:8,9 teaches that by God's grace, manifested in His commands, we are saved when we obey (like Noah did) through faith.

It's break time for now. Talk with you all tomorrow,

In Christ,

bmerr

 

DHK,

bmerr here. What would you say that "born of water" in John 3:5 is a reference to? What does it mean to be "born of water" in order to enter the kingdom of God? Awaiting your thoughts.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

The truth of justification through faith alone is absolutly thundered from the scriptures.

To miss justification through faith alone is to betray a spiritual blindness that is beyond comprehension.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Mike,

bmerr here. I wouldn't say that the theme of justification by "faith only" is exactly "thundered" throughout the Scriptures. It would have to at least say it once, don't you think?

But the Bible only uses the phrase "faith only" one time, and it happens to be in the context of justification. James 2:24 reads,

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Justification by faith? Absolutely.

Justification by faith alone? Absolutely not.

As have been given in the past, there are many verses which teach salvation, or justification by faith, apart from works of the law. On the other hand, the verse from James is quite clear that we are not justified by faith apart from works.

We have to find how these two, seemingly opposing ideas work together, for they are both contained in the Bible. Unfortunately, in the quest to discern truth, many of us get quite opinionated, often to the point of pitting verse against verse, or choosing one text to the exclusion of another.

Sometimes we even get a little hostile with each other.

For my part in this misbehavior, I am sorry. The bulk of my offense has probably been against DHK, and it was wrong of me to take the tone I have in recent posts. Forgive me, sir. I'm not aware of any others, but if I've forgotten any, please accept my apology.

That said, let's get back to the text at hand, Eph 2:8, 9.

We should remember that Paul spent alot of time combating the Judaizers, those who would have brought the early church back under the bondage of the Mosaic Law. In some cases, these were actually Christians, but they were in error, and were attempting to lead others into it.

When we read Paul's epistles and he speaks of "works", in most every case I can think of, he is speaking of keeping the Mosaic Law.

Both Paul and James use the example of Abraham to prove their different points. Paul shows that Abraham was justified without the works of the law, since there was no Mosaic Law for Abraham to be under. James shows that Abraham was justified when he did what God told him to do.

In the NT, the Mosaic Law, with it's peculiarities is done away with. However, there are still things which God commands us to do, and unless we do them, we will not be justified.

When Paul says "not of works, lest any man should boast", he is speaking of works of the law, by which the Judaizers attempted to make themselves acceptable in God's sight.

When James says "by works a man is justified", he speaks of doing those things which God has commanded, apart from the law of Moses.

Under the NT, there are things to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be received. Therefore, believing the gospel, let us obey what God has commanded us, and hope for the promised blessing for the faithful.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Mike,

bmerr here. A few posts ago you asked about Cornelius in Acts 10. I didn't mean to pass it by. I think there were a couple others I haven't responded to yet. I'm finally popular!

Okay, Cornelius. We know the background, and we both have Bibles, so there's no need for me to type the whole thing out. Whew!

Your question centered around the Holy Spirit (HS) falling on Cornelius and household (C+H).

Let's pick up the text in 10:34, where Peter begins preaching. He's already been introduced to C+H, and C has recalled the events that led him to send for Peter. Peter preaches the risen Christ, and in 10:44 the HS falls on C+H.

Now look at the reaction of the Jewish brethren that had come with Peter in 10:45, 46.

"And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

Now the only other time the HS fell on anyone like this was in Acts 2 with the apostles. They spoke in tongues then, too. The result in Acts 2 was that the assembled Jews took notice that what was happening was from God.

Same thing happening here. Peter had had the vision of the sheet. The six (11:12) brethren had not.

At this point, it looks as if Peter preached to C+H, thus making faith possible, and then the HS fell on them. But if we look to Acts 11:4, we find two small, yet important words.

"But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them..."

Acts 10 gives an account of the things that happened at C's house. Acts 11 gives the order in which those things happened.

In Acts 11:5-13, Peter gives the narrative of his vision, the trip to C's house, and a summary of C's retelling of what he had seen.

In 11:14, we see that there were words whereby C and all his house would be saved.

Those words would include the gospel message, and how to respond to it.

We know that "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17). So until C+H heard the word, they couldn't be saved, not by faith only, or faithful obedience either one.

In 11:15, Peter tells us exactly when the HS fell on C+H. He said, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

What did Peter say as he began to speak? Acts 10:34, 35 says, "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted of him."

Those are the words that Peter uttered as he began to speak, when the HS fell on C+H. Were they saved? Had they heard the gospel from Peter? They had not. They didn't hear the gospel which contained the words whereby they could have faith to be saved by until after the HS fell on them.

Mike, it is my conclusion that the HS did not fall on C+H to demonstrate that they were saved, but to convince them of the circumcision that Gentiles could be saved, and should have the gospel preached to them.

So we have the HS falling on C+H, then the gospel being preached, and then Peter commanding them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Their baptism was for the remission of sins, just as was preached by Peter in Acts 2:38.

There is a pattern repeated in nearly every conversion account in the book of Acts. It is the pattern of faith, repentance, and baptism.

I know this runs contrary to what you have heard in the past. The reason I have an answer to many of the questions that have been posed to me is that they are questions I have asked myself.

Please accept my exposition of the conversion of Cornelius in the spirit in which it is offered. I hope it is helpful.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

dianetavegia,

bmerr here. I'm playing catch-up, Ma'am. You apparently have a larger library than I do. I have a commentary on John by Guy N. Woods. If I may, I'll borrow the late brother's words. I don't think he'd mind. This is a bit lengthy, so please bear with me.

"The fact of the new birth is stated in verse 3; here, the details of it are given. There is one birth; there are two elements, "water", and "the Spirit". Thus, both are essential to the new birth; and the new birth is essential to entering the kingdom. What, then, is meant by being born of water and the Spirit? To enter the kingdom is to be saved (Col 1:13, 14). To be saved one must believe, repent, confess, and be baptized for (unto) the remission of sins (Heb 11:6; Luke 13:3; Rom 10:10; Acts 2:38). To enter the kingdom one must be born of water and the Spirit. Since things equal to the same thing are eaqual to each other, it follows that to be born of water and of the Spirit is to believe the gospel, repent of one's sins, confess one's faith in Christ, and be baptized for the remission of sins. John 3:5 figuratively states what is literally affirmed in Acts 2:38. To be born "anew" is simply to obey the gospel. It is not surprising that those who deny to baptism its proper place among the conditions of pardon would interpret "water" in John 3:5 to mean something other than baptism; in so doing, they are in conflict with the scholarship of the world, both ancient and modern. Henry Alford, one of the translators of the American Standard Version, wrote that "all attempts to get rid of" baptism in this passage "have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which the views of expositors have been warped," and Hooker, himself a writer of more than a hundred years ago, said that "of all ancient writers there is not one to be named who ever expounded this text otherwise than as implying external baptism." One is begotten of the Spirit by believing the Word which the Spirit gave, and born of water by coming forth from the waters of baptism."

Can you say, HAND-CRAMP!!! Man, that Guy could talk!

I guess the problem with the explanation you offered is that though the claim is that the water Jesus spoke of is not really water, as we go through Acts, which is in large part a book of conversions, we see a number of baptisms in water. If these immersions in water were not for the purpose given in Acts 2:38 and other passages, what were they for, and what Scripture would tell us? See what I mean?

Anyway, I'm sorry I skipped you. It wasn't intentional. I can only do what I can do.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Where does the division lie bmerr? </font>[/QUOTE]hillclimber,

bmerr here. Didn't mean to skip over you, sir. Do you mean the division between the Old and New Testaments?

If that's what you meant, I'd say the OT ended with the death of Christ, when He "Blott[ed] out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col 2"14).

The New would begin in Acts 2, where the gospel was first preached, and the conditions of pardon were first given by Peter.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

DHK, bmerr here. Honestly, sir, I wouldn't even hold this idea as being plausible, since this is what Nicodemus had in mind, and this is what Jesus was correcting him about.

The phrase "born again" in verse 3 is simply re-worded in verse 5 as "born of water and of the Spirit".

So there are two elements involved in the new birth, namely, water, and the Spirit.

Your contention that the water is representative of the word of God as a cleansing agent, combined with the Spirit seems to require an operation of the Holy Spirit separate and apart from that which He does through the word itself. This idea is also essential to Calvinism.

The Spirit of God works through the sword of the Spirit, the word of God (Eph 6:17). In every recorded case of conversion, the hearts of men were either pricked, resulting in obedience (as in Acts 2:27), or cut, resulting in the persecution of the speaker (as in Acts 7:54), as a result of the Spirit of God speaking the word of God through human lips.

Those who gladly received the word of the Spirit of God responded by being immersed in water. Thus, they were "born of water and of the Spirit".

It is the word of God, (delivered by the Spirit) which instructs men to be immersed in water for the remission of sins. In this case, the elements described by Christ can be just what He said they were, and are not forced into redundancy.

Right. And it is exactly this kind of washing that Peter said is not accomplished in baptism (1 Pet 3:21). Dirt is the filth of the flesh, the removal of which is not the purpose of baptism. The filth of the soul, which is removed by one's submission to baptism, is sin.

Actually, Jesus told the apostles that they were clean through the word He had spoken unto them. At this point, the New Testament was not in effect. The kingdom had not yet been established, and the terms of entrance into the kingdom were not yet required of men.

Exactly. And it is the word of truth (brought by the Spirit)that instructs men under the New Testament to be immersed in water for the remission of sins.

Right. When that one does what is commanded by the word of God in order to obtain the remission of sins, namely, be baptized in water for the remission of sins. In the same book we find that "...even baptism doth also now save us..." If not from sin, then from what?

I'll have to finish this up later. something came up.

In Christ,

bmerr