Baptism:Luther, Knox, Calvin, Augustine...

[Darron Steele]

JSM17: I am doing my best to be patient with you, but for the second time, you have given a `clarification' where you continue to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

No time, my position on faith has always been the same. As I said before what I may or may not have said in the pass I can assure you was the same.
Faith that saves is a faith that leads one to repent.

The question does faith include repentance: yes
As well as other acts of obedience God calls us to obey in faith in order to be saved.

When I say we are not saved by faith alone I think you agree when some declare that faith is the same thing as repentance. For me faith alone means faith all by itself apart from repentance and any other act of obedience towards God.....

First you say that "does faith include repentance: yes"

WHILE​

you talk about "faith that leads one to repent" and "faith alone" as "faith all by itself apart from repentance."

It is really, really simple: IF FAITH INCLUDES REPENTANCE THEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAITH APART FROM REPENTANCE.

It does not exist even for a moment. "Faith alone" would include repentance without saying. There would be no point in talking about faith without repentance.

I realize you want to have both so that you can shift sides of your mouth as convenient for debate. You know that separating faith and repentance is convenient to try to get around Ephesians 2:8-10 and other passages that teach that we are saved by faith. On the other hand, you know that the Bible does not acknowledge that one can believe on Jesus Christ without repentance; you do not want to acknowledge `watering down' what faith means in Scripture. However, it is this simple: you cannot have both -- either faith includes repentance or it does not.

It is for you to determine once and for all which is it.

• If you decide that faith can exist without repentance, then I do not want to read any more claims from you that faith includes much more than a meaningless assent -- if anything.

• If you decide that faith includes repentance, then I do not want to read any more from you about how "faith alone" excludes repentance.

Pick one, and stick with it.

If you need to take some time to decide, please take it. I do not want you to make a rush decision if you need time. I am not going to pull any `still waiting' nonsense. If you need time to think about it, I will be happy to give it to you -- but I insist that you make a permanent decision as to what "faith" does and does not entail.

Otherwise, I will soon start calling this like I see it. Right now, you are looking more like a weasel who wants to keep any tricks available in order to `win' by any means, as opposed to an honest person. I hope you step up and give me reason to doubt my suspicion.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Academic sterility, is all this much ado about nothing, all because the place of the apostles has been taken in by a Denominational Structure and the work of the Holy Spirit has been taken over by a religion of salvation by works.

 

[JSM17]

1. One can have spiritual life by faith alone? T or F

2. Repentance is necessary to one having spiritual life? T or F

3. An alien sinner must come to faith before he can repent (Acts 2:27, 28; Roman 10:14)? T or F

4.A sinner who comes to faith but who does not repent still has spiritual life (Luke 13:3)? T or F

5. If a sinner with faith must repent before he has spiritual life then faith alone does not save? T or F


Really I am not sure what the confusion is. Repentance is not faith and faith is not repentance. But when one has faith in Christ it will lead to godly sorrow (2 Corin. 7:10) which lead to repentance which leads to life. So saving faith will lead one to repent, if one does not repent then that faith is dead.

James 2:22

22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
NKJV

1. Faith is made perfect or complete by further acts of obedience? T or F

2. Faith without further acts of obedience (including repentance) is an incomplete faith? T or F

3. A sinner can be saved by an incomplete faith? T or F

4. A sinner who has faith but who has not confessed his faith (John 12:42, 43) and who has not repented (Luke 13:3) can be saved by faith alone? T or F

5. If a sinner must repent before he can be saved then a sinner cannot be saved by faith alone? T or F

 

[Darron Steele]

1. One can have spiritual life by faith alone? T or F

2. Repentance is necessary to one having spiritual life? T or F

3. An alien sinner must come to faith before he can repent (Acts 2:27, 28; Roman 10:14)? T or F

4.A sinner who comes to faith but who does not repent still has spiritual life (Luke 13:3)? T or F

5. If a sinner with faith must repent before he has spiritual life then faith alone does not save? T or F


Really I am not sure what the confusion is. Repentance is not faith and faith is not repentance. But when one has faith in Christ it will lead to godly sorrow (2 Corin. 7:10) which lead to repentance which leads to life. So saving faith will lead one to repent, if one does not repent then that faith is dead.

James 2:22

22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
NKJV

1. Faith is made perfect or complete by further acts of obedience? T or F

2. Faith without further acts of obedience (including repentance) is an incomplete faith? T or F

3. A sinner can be saved by an incomplete faith? T or F

4. A sinner who has faith but who has not confessed his faith (John 12:42, 43) and who has not repented (Luke 13:3) can be saved by faith alone? T or F

5. If a sinner must repent before he can be saved then a sinner cannot be saved by faith alone? T or F

I am not playing the "True or False" game with you.

It is beneath my intelligence, and what it is used for is unbecoming of Christians.

Further, after being called on to choose a `side of your mouth' regarding what faith includes or does not include, you have still avoided doing so. In fact, this game is your latest weaseling.

Since you have chosen to weasel away from your practice of speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and further, have digressed to this, I will no longer be assuming the best of you.

You have shown that you are someone who is here to `win' debates, regardless of the means, and regardless of the truth.

For all we know, you yourself do not believe all the positions or arguments you advance to be genuine truth.

 

[JSM17]

Its not about winning a discussion. Its about debating the truth. The true false questions are simple but effective. They show that faith and repentance are not the same. They show that faith alone apart from obedience does not save.

Is it possible for someone to come to understand who Christ is, that is to come to belief in Christ and still be learning to the point of repentance?

Repentance is developed by godly sorrow, it seem as though you insist that it is always immediate (Since according to you repentance and faith cannot be seperated). It has to do with the heart, man can come to hear the words of God and yet to understand that he must repent.

There are those in N.T scripture that believed in Christ, yet did not repent, that would not confess.

If you were working with someone who did not understand or know God or even know who Jesus was, yet through study that person came to an understanding that Jesus was the Christ but had failed to understand yet the need for repentance would you say that the person was saved? But because they had not repented yet would you say they did not have a belief in Christ?

You can call me whatever you want and you can accuse me of talking out od two sides of my mouth. The truth is that there is much inconsistancies in your doctrine. If salvation is by faith alone, then it cannot include repentance. Your misunderstanding of my position is on your part not mine.

If one come to faith yet never repents then his faith will not save him. What I mean by that is believeing in Christ with continued seeking will result in a development of godly sorrow which will lead to repentance. If someone comes to faith and is convicted and repents at that moment, it still does not make faith and repentanc the same.

Maybe it is you who feels that they need to win the argument. Because I do not agree with you I am a weasel.

Again why not answer the true false question if they are beneath you then they should be easy to answer. The problem is that they logically show that repentance and faith are not the same. They show that faith apart from works is dead no matter whether before conversion or after.

 

[Darron Steele]

Its not about winning a discussion. Its about debating the truth. The true false questions are simple but effective. ....

Oh, believe me, I know.

They are very effective in setting up an uninformed person to be deliberately misrepresented and smeared.

Once that gets started, discussion that is truthful both ways is over. They have nothing to do with seeking truthful discussions about the truth -- they entirely undermine that.

Your resorting to that the true/false tactic is consistent with your `Now I deny it, now I affirm it, now I deny it' game you have been playing with what faith includes/does not include. You `deny' normally, then `affirm' when it would be expedient, then promptly you go back to `deny.'

In regards to that `Now I deny it, now I affirm it, now I deny it' game you have been playing, all that you were asked to do was decide once and for all whether you affirm or deny. If this thread was about truth, you yourself would want to have a solid view -- but you actually evaded doing so. The reader can go back and see how you handled that.

I am just calling it as I see it. At this point, I would be `burying my head in the sand' if I `saw' otherwise. I have given you chance after chance to show otherwise -- not only did you not step up, but you made a crafty effort to avoid it, and then you crawled down.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

JSM14:
"There are those in N.T scripture that believed in Christ, yet did not repent, that would not confess. "

GE:
This, is utterly, untrue!

 

[JSM17]

JSM14:
"There are those in N.T scripture that believed in Christ, yet did not repent, that would not confess. "

GE:
This, is utterly, untrue!

John 12:42
42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;

 

[Darron Steele]

John 12:42
42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;

So is this part of the pre-Acts 2 part of Scripture that is considered applicable?

I know that in your church group, some are considered applicable to `the New Testament church' and some are not. Is this passage one of them that applies?

Also, will your position on that be shifting according to the circumstances of the discussion?

Oh, and were there some whom you claim believed but did not repent? Please explain.

Also, if/when you explain, could you specify whether or not you are including repentance within faith at the moment? You deny or affirm according to the circumstances on this, and so we need you to clarify which you will do at that moment.

 

[JSM17]

Acts 26:25-28

25 But he said, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason.

26 For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner.

27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe."

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian."
NKJV


Paul declared that he knew that the king believed the prophets, he said I know you believe, yet the king was not persuaded to become a christian. He believed yet would not have a change of heart, would not repent.


John 12:42-43
Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;

43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
NKJV

If they believed in Him, which the text delcares that they did, yet they would not confess Him, which tells us that they believed but did not have a change of heart.

John 8:31
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
NKJV

These men believed in Him, were they saved according to the context?

 

[Darron Steele]

Acts 26:25-28

25 But he said, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason.

26 For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner.

27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe."

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian."
NKJV


Paul declared that he knew that the king believed the prophets, he said I know you believe, yet the king was not persuaded to become a christian. He believed yet would not have a change of heart, would not repent.

You are straining. Paul said "do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe" which means that Agrippa believed the prophets.

It is debatable whether or not Agrippa spoke his true sentiment or was using sarcasm.

John 12:42-43
Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;

43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
NKJV

If they believed in Him, which the text delcares that they did, yet they would not confess Him, which tells us that they believed but did not have a change of heart.

So I take it this is one of those passages before Acts 2 that you consider applicable to the modern church?

I will assume so -- and I hope you do not shift according to convenience as is your habit.

So based on this, you say that they had no change of heart? Did the text say so? Not in what I read. How do you know? Are you just passing judgment against them because they did not all should have in one thing? Wow! If one failure to do all we should have = no change of heart, then none of us who are Christians have had a change of heart. Your judgment criteria is invalid, and your judgment against those people a sweeping judgment.

Matthew 10:32-3 is claimed as teaching that if we do not confess Jesus before Him, He will deny us. Matthew 10:32 has "Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father" (ASV) and 10:33 has "whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father" (ASV). I stick with the text: He will acknowledge those who acknowledge Him before people, and He will deny anyone who denies Him.

Back to John 12, says that they "believed on him" (ASV) but it says they "they did not confess it" (ASV). It does not say that they denied Him -- the text suggests they simply and quietly continued to believe on Him.

They no doubt lived according to His teachings but kept quiet about it.

John 8:31
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
NKJV

These men believed in Him, were they saved according to the context?

Why would they not be?

Jesus spoke to a mixed audience of Jews who believed on Him and those who did not. He stepped away from the dispute for a moment to insert those comments for that portion. It is a great example of how the Lord gives special attention for His followers.

The rest of the crowd continued in their rebellion against Him, and the disputation there continued. I cannot believe you would seriously suggest that people who believed on Him would speak to Him like the general crowd was. Therefore, I will assume you are not.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Yes Darron, it's nice to agree with you once. Agrippa believed like the devil believes (James), and those who truly believed but did not confess : it is clear they at that occasion confessed not; it does not say they never confessed. I believe that they would have confessed their faith eventually and somehow else; only under that ongoing circumstance they did not.

 

[JSM17]

John 12:43

43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
NKJV

Does this sound like they repented?

Does this sound like a converted man by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Darron Steele]

John 12:43

43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
NKJV

Does this sound like they repented?

Does this sound like a converted man by the Holy Spirit?

This was before the New Covenant, so I am unaware of any biblical indication that the Holy Spirit was converting anyone.

As for "Does this sound like they repented?" I answered this above.

I am not comfortable judging whether someone has repented before the Lord based upon one thing. It is not enough information.

Jesus said at Matthew 7:2 "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you" (ASV). I would not want to be judged based upon failure to do everything I should have.

Evidently, you are quite comfortable making such judgments. I could not imagine being so comfortable. I guess I no longer have the privilege of ignorance of my own shortcomings, or those of others that could have just as easily been mine.

I dare say that if you were to judge yourself with the same `zip' as you did these people, you would find out that you too have failed to do all that you should. If you were to take an honest look at your past, you would realize that you fail your own test about whether you had repented or not!

"Does this sound like they repented?" -- not necessarily so or no. It sounds like they failed do all they should have -- just like any Christian has, whether s/he has the humility to accept it or not.

I have no reason to assume they had not repented. Further, regardless of whether you want to accept it or not, you do not either.

 

[JSM17]

Back to John 12, says that they "believed on him" (ASV) but it says they "they did not confess it" (ASV). It does not say that they denied Him -- the text suggests they simply and quietly continued to believe on Him.

"Many of the rulers believed him. They did not confess. Negative imperfect in contrast with the punctilear aorist, 'they kept on not confessing.'"
A.T. Robertson

 

[Darron Steele]

"Many of the rulers believed him. They did not confess. Negative imperfect in contrast with the punctilear aorist, 'they kept on not confessing.'"
A.T. Robertson

Your point? No one denies that they did not confess. How does this improve upon what has actually been discussed?

 

[JSM17]

One who believes yet kept on NOT confessing is a sign of no change of heart, by their fruits they will be known. The force is that they believed yet this belief did not result in as change to start confessing, if fact the force of the language dictates that they did not confess. Point being were they saved as they kept on not confessing Christ. The point being that if this belief was in Christ yet they would not confess Him how can this belief save them while while they kept on not confessing Christ.

Matthew 10:32, 33
32"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

33"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Their belief in Christ did not result in being saved if they kept on not confessing Christ.

Can one be saved while not confessing Christ?

 

[DeafPosttrib]

I would like to add something to say on Matt. 10:32,33. This passage is deal with anyone who facing persecution, anyone who asking to a Christian, "Who are you a Christian?" as they are about to torture or kill a Christian at same time. Christian have to be gut and be strong with brave and dare tell to them, "Yes I am a Christian" that is confessing before men and before Christ too. That means, a Christian is not deny Christ.

But, while Christian facing question and persecute, do felling the fear inside for being facing suffer and death, do not want to be suffer or death, Christian have no choice, but to tell them, "No I am not Christian", Christian's life is saved, but Christian DENY Christ, therefore, Christ will deny this person, send this person to hell.

In 2 Tim. 2:11-12 telling us, if we suffer with Christ, we shall reign with him, if we deny, then Christ will deny us. That mean, if we deny Christ, then Christ will deny us, by send us away into everlasting punishment.

Notice Rev. 3:5 says, anyone who overcoming the world at death, Christ shall confess this person before Father and angels at Judgment Day. Or, if a person fails to overcoming the world, then Christ shall deny this person before Father and his angels, also, person's name shall be removed away from the book of life, and cast away into lake of fire according Rev. 20:14-15.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Benefactor]

I will present another passage that means what it says: Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).


One of the passages you brought up is not even talking about baptism. Not every reference to water in Scripture is a reference to baptism.

There is not a single passage of Scripture that states that unless someone is baptized, then s/he will not be saved. Not one. Assertions that they do are based on inference.

Anytime an inference contradicts an explicit statement of Scripture, the inference is wrong.

Let me deal with some of your favorites:
Matthew 28:19-20 I already quoted in a good translation,
Acts 22:16 says ""Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB),
Mark 16:16, if we grant its authenticity, does not say `he that believeth but is baptized not shall be condemned,'
1 Peter 3:21 explicitly states that the bath does not save us -- "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" -- you quoted it,
Acts 2:38, granted that the way foreign translations handle it is not the best way, and the 1769 KJV is the best way, does not say `for without baptism, no one shall ever receive remission of sins.'

You see, your position is based upon inferences. You assume that John 3:5's mention of water means baptism. You assume that we wash away our sins in baptism, when the text says we do so by calling on His Name. In one case, your inference is contrary to the text. In others, your inference is something beyond what the text states.

My position, in contrast, sticks with what Scripture actually states. My position: "every one that believeth on him receives remission of sins" -- exactly as Scripture says.

So tell me, Zenas: is it your position that believers on Jesus Christ will be unsaved if for some reason they fail to be baptized? If so, being Baptist, do you make a personal endeavor to arrange for new converts in your congregation to be baptized as quickly as you can get them to water? If not, why not?

Biblically, there is no merit to having Christians fret over misguided ideas that beloved Christians who died unbaptized are not in Heaven. There is no merit to any ideas that Christians are not Christians because they have not been baptized. There is no merit to any ideas that we should divert time, attention, and resources away from evangelism of unbelievers to `evangelize' Christians. All of these are harmful byproducts of `salvation by completed baptism.'

Why can we be sure there is no merit to these harmful notions? Acts 10:43 explicitly says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

I agree that water baptism does not save. Acts 10 demonstrates this:

43 speaks of salvation prior to water baptism
44-46 we have the historical conformation of receiving the spirit with the speaking of tongues which I personally believe ceased to function in this manner
47 water baptism came after the declaration that these were saved by believing

Chapter ten give order of the process.

Personally when I accepted Christ I was saved that moment. I experienced a make over in my heart that morning, new life. I was baptized several weeks later, but I can testify that I was new, different, and changed and the water did not cause me to experience anything more or less. Up to that point I had been baptized as a young boy around 12 and sprinkled when I married my late wife then. So if baptism saves I was saved in the Baptist Church and the Methodist Church. Of course those two baptisms did not save me. I was really saved in the Anderson Church of God not by the denotation but by God's miraculous work in my heart, born from above. I might add that when I left the CofG and because a Baptist again as a real believer by local church requirement I had to be baptized again, just a ritual as far as I am concerned, something to put on paper and turn in for recognition, a head count approach to membership. It did not do anything for me accept to comply with the local body rules.

 

[JSM17]

Benefactor Wrote:

43 speaks of salvation prior to water baptism
44-46 we have the historical conformation of receiving the spirit with the speaking of tongues which I personally believe ceased to function in this manner
47 water baptism came after the declaration that these were saved by believing

Verse 43 speaks of those who believe, which does not speak of faith alone.
Verse 44-46 Speaking in tongues does not prove that one is saved. Did those Samaritians in Acts 8 who believed and then were baptized saved even though they did not receive the H.S.? They believed according to many they were saved at that point. They were also baptized, yet did not recceive the H.S. What about the Apostles who received the H.S. just as Cornelius, when were the Apostles saved, why does Peter make the statement "Just as we did"?
Verse 47 Show me the passage that teaches that they were saved before baptism, because I do not see it, you say theu were but the scripture does not, besides if your proof of this is verse 43, then you misunderstand what it means to believe, as if it is something apart from obeying the Gospel.

Acts 16:31-34
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

Believe encompasses hearing the word of God, a change, repentance (washing their stripes) resistution for wrong towards Paul and Silas. They were then baptized.

Now when all this had been done verse 34 says that "having believed" it is clear that having believed means more than just faith, it encompasses all the actions that took place.

There is no indication when Cornelius was saved, the passage does not dictate at the very moment, but if he is like all the other conversions in the N.T. then his was just like those in Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31-34. Acts 8.


There is no such thing as a save person who has not been baptized for the forgiveness of sins.