Baptism--Why?

[Frank]

Many times writers of the new testament used a grammatical vehicle called synechdoche to make a point about salvation. Synechdoche is used as a part for a whole or the whole for it's parts. Examples of the use of this grammatical method are the following:

Acts 11:18,  When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. The rest of the conditions are implied.

I John 4;2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: The rest of the conditions are implied.

1 Peter 3:21  ¶The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: The rest of the conditions are implied.

By the way, even old testament characters were baptized. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 10:1, 2  ¶Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by ascund:

Greetings

Your redo of Mark 16 is wrong for both eating and digesting are required for life. In this manner you make baptism a requirement for eternal life ignoring the millions of OT saints who were never baptised.

Lloyd,

bmerr here. If I may jump in for a moment, I'd like to address a couple of your points.

Something to remember about OT saints is that they were not commanded to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." We who are amenable to the NT are.

Your view is also discredited by the apostle John. He wrote his Gospel for the express purpose that sinners might believe in Jesus and have eternal life through His name (John 20:31). Yet, incredulously, there is not one reference to either water baptism or repentance. Not one!

Let's look at the verse.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

It is common knowledge that not everyone who hears the words of John, or reads them themselves, will believe them. Thus, "...ye might believe..."

It is likewise true that not everyone who believes will obey Christ, and be partaker of the salvation of which He is the author (Heb 5:8-9).

Repentance and baptism are both commanded under the NT of Jesus Christ. To deny that is to deny the word of God. The authority for these commands rests in Christ (Matt 28:18).

Those who believe on His name are given the power (right, or priviledge) to become the sons of God (John 1:12). They become the sons of God through the new birth (John 3:3-5).

And really, to require the Bible to list every requirement involved in the faith each time it's mentioned is absurd. It's like a waitress requiring a customer to make their order by asking for each individual ingredient that the dish is made up of.

We can't assume something is not required for salvation simply because it's not mentioned in every passage that speaks on the topic.

In the same fashion, neither baptism nor repentance is required for eternal life. John only talks about the things that are important - like faith/belief in Jesus.

While baptism seems to be linked with faith for salvation, the denial of faith by itself (Mark 16:16b) is enough to condemn a person to an eternity in hell. John 3:18 also severs the link between faith and water baptism.

John 3:18 explains why Jesus didn't have to say, "But he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned." Apart from faith, baptism is meaningless.

Let me ask you, if you had not wanted people to think that baptism was essential to salvation, how would you have worded Mark 16:16?

While believing (justification) and baptism (sanctification) certainly lead to salvation, only believing is required for sanctification depends on justification.

Surely you see the contradiction here. How can two things be required to lead to salvation, but only one thing be required to get there?

The negative fallacy error amplifies your confusion of justification and sanctification with respect to salvation.

Again, I think you may be the one in error by trying to separate justification and sanctification.

This isn't carving up God's Word. It is understanding it to avoid the error of a progressive salvation that points to Jesus in word but denies Him in reality. There will many at the final judgment crying "Lord, Lord" but who are turned away for their human-centered self-righteous theology of baptism.

If baptism were the idea of man, then you would have a point. But it's not. It is Jesus who commanded baptism. Fulfilling His requirements is not "self-righteous", but simply working the righteous commands of God.

How can one's faith in God be known apart from their obedience to His commands? What kind of faith has not works?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings bmerr

I am slighty taken back. How is it that you can still make such statements?

Originally posted by bmerr:
It is common knowledge that not everyone who hears the words of John, or reads them themselves, will believe them. Thus, "...ye might believe..."

It is likewise true that not everyone who believes will obey Christ, and be partaker of the salvation of which He is the author (Heb 5:8-9).

I looked the verses up. What don't you understand about the adverb "ALL"? Eternal salvation to ALL who believe.

Please don't get up in the air about the word obey, because Christ Himself says that the only obedience required for justification is to believe (John 6:28-29; I John 3:23, 5:4-5).

Faith in Jesus is the only obedience that leads to eternal life.

Originally posted by bmerr:
Repentance and baptism are both commanded under the NT of Jesus Christ. To deny that is to deny the word of God. The authority for these commands rests in Christ (Matt 28:18).

I think you are trying to combine Luke 24:47 with matt 28:18. Here, you violate basic context. These great commissions are given to the whole world. Peter's Acts 2:38 is given specifically and only to national Israel. It is a terrible linguistics error to take the definition from one context and violently thrust it upon another context.

Remission of sins in Luke 24 is just like the remission of sins in Acts 10. It is equated with the Spirit's baptism and precedes water baptism. Context rules!

Originally posted by bmerr:
Let me ask you, if you had not wanted people to think that baptism was essential to salvation, how would you have worded Mark 16:16?

You miss the point I've been telling and retelling. Justificaiton is by faith. Salvation is both justification and sanctification.

He who believes (justification) and is baptised (sanctification) shall be saved. Justification determines sanctification. You show no learning of these critical key terms.

Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Again, the question gets down to, "What kind of faith justifies"? Is it a faith manifested by obedience, or is it a dead faith, apart from works of obedience?

I believe more strongly with each post that you are the one who is in error by trying to separate justification and sanctification. They are two sides of the same coin. One without the other is only half of the coin, not the whole.

I am unable to understand how you are still promoting the idea that Acts 2 was a message of repentance only for national Israel. When was such a message commanded to be preached? By what authority did Peter preach such a message, when Christ commissioned him and the rest of the apostles to preach the gospel?

It is only natural that Peter would adress Jews in his preaching, since it was primarily a Jewish audience. This would not limit the message of the death, burial, and resurrection to the Jews only. Jerusalem was the starting point.

I find your claim, "Remission of sins in Luke 24 is just like the remission of sins in Acts 10" to be very inconsistent. Why must the remission of sins in Acts 2 be excluded from that commanded in the great commission?

If we were to lump together all of Christ's words in the context of the great commission, it would read something like this:

"Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

In Acts 2, we find the gospel preached, as well as repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. Those who gladly received the word were baptized, and the Lord added daily to the church those who would be saved.

The same thing is found in every conversion account, including that of Cornelius in Acts 10.

You almost seem to get it right, and then you get it wrong. Dig this:

Originally by ascund:

Justificaiton is by faith. Salvation is both justification and sanctification.

He who believes (justification) and is baptised (sanctification) shall be saved. Justification determines sanctification.

You say it yourself; salvation depends upon both justification and sanctification. Somehow you ignore the fact that justification is "not by faith only" (James 2:24). You make the claim that half of salvation (justification) = all of salvation (justification + sanctification). It's like saying 2+2=4, but 2=4, and leads to the other 2. It makes no sense, either Biblically, or in the common type.

Has much learning made you mad, Lloyd?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally quoted by bmerr:
Again, the question gets down to, "What kind of faith justifies"? Is it a faith manifested by obedience, or is it a dead faith, apart from works of obedience?

I don’t like your word “manifested.” I would use the phrase faith is verified by obedience. Your phrase makes faith the result of a blending of justification and sanctification. While salvation is both justification and sanctification, the distinction must be maintained. Your view makes final justification depend on human faithfulness. Who can comply? Rom 1:19-3:19 makes it perfectly clear that no category of human faithfulness satisfies God. Every mouth will be stopped in the judgment because the guilt will be so overwhelmingly clear (3:19). Your view is an unwitting system of death. We all will go to hell.

My phrase makes faith the instrument of righteousness. Justification by PASSIVE faith in Jesus Christ allows God’s declaration of forgiveness, imputation of righteousness, bestowal of eternal life, and acceptance into His family. Sanctification is the ACTIVE obedience that imprecisely verifies justification.

All of your concern for human obedience is well and good but belongs to the theological category of sanctification. You blend this with justification thus unwittingly denying the completeness of Jesus and His Cross. Your zeal for human faithfulness unwittingly denies Jesus’ acceptability before God.

Originally quoted by bmerr:
You say it yourself; salvation depends upon both justification and sanctification. Somehow you ignore the fact that justification is "not by faith only" (James 2:24). You make the claim that half of salvation (justification) = all of salvation (justification + sanctification). It's like saying 2+2=4, but 2=4, and leads to the other 2. It makes no sense, either Biblically, or in the common type.

It isn’t 2+2=4. At the moment of faith one is completely justified and sanctified. Justified means all that I’ve listed above. Sanctified (past tense) means set aside in God’s family. The position of being set aside into God’s family is imprecisely verified by good works.

God the Judge is totally satisfied with both aspects. God our Father is yet displeased with continuous sins. Sanctification (present tense) is an operation of mostly failures and continuous sins on our part (Heb 10:14 again). However, while continuous sin will be judged, God does not kick His children out of the house.

Your comments show that you still are defining justification and sanctification from your human-centered urge to be self-righteous before God. You can NEVER please God this way. Jesus Christ is the only WAY to God. If you add, change, modify, or supplement His Cross you unwittingly deny the very Jesus you claim to worship.

Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eschatologist:
Mark 16:16 says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Believing and baptism is here directly linked to salvation! Trying to separate them is changing the Word of God. ...

"Whoever eats and digests will live, but whoever does not eat will die."

Why was digest left out of the second part? well it is obvious, if you don't eat there will be nothing to digest and you will starve and die!

Your redo of Mark 16 is wrong for both eating and digesting are required for life. In this manner you make baptism a requirement for eternal life ignoring the millions of OT saints who were never baptised.
</font>[/QUOTE]"eating and digesting are required for life" - Yes, I think you understand, the same way "believe and baptism are required for salvation."

"you make baptism a requirement for eternal life ignoring the millions of OT saints who were never baptised"

First of all, argue with Jesus, He is the one who said it.

I am amazed that you cannot see the distinction between the old and new covenants. Baptism was never a requirement under the old covenant. Confession that Jesus is Lord was never a requirement under the old covenant either. The old law was nailed to the cross. No wonder you have such confusion.

There were symbolic baptisms in the old law. When the childern of Israel left Egyptian bondage, they were baptized INTO Moses, the lawgiver of that day, by the cloud and Red sea - I Cor 10:1-2. God delivered them, but action was required on their part when they went through the sea. They left bondage. We leave bondage of sin when we are baptized into Christ, the lawgiver of today. We are no longer slaves to sin (Rom 6:1-6).

Of course there is the example of Noah, how he was saved through water which symbolizes the water in baptism, which saves us (I Pet 3:21).

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Faith in Jesus is the only obedience that leads to eternal life.

That doesn't even make sense. How is belief in Jesus equal to obedience?

John 12:42, the rulers belived in Jesus, yet they would not confess Him.

Are you saying they were obedient? Their belief was obedience that leads to eternal life.

This is in direct contradiction with Matt 10:32.

I think you are trying to combine Luke 24:47 with matt 28:18. Here, you violate basic context. These great commissions are given to the whole world. Peter's Acts 2:38 is given specifically and only to national Israel. It is a terrible linguistics error to take the definition from one context and violently thrust it upon another context.

Remission of sins in Luke 24 is just like the remission of sins in Acts 10. It is equated with the Spirit's baptism and precedes water baptism. Context rules!

So, what you are saying is that National Israel was not part of the world? How ridiculous! The same gospel was preached to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 1:16).

Gal 3:28 states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

All are one in Christ. How did the Jews and Greeks get into Christ? The previous verses tell us, baptism (Gal 3:26-27). So the Jews were baptized into Christ. How did the Jews in Acts 2 get into Christ? The same way, water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Only in Christ is there remission of sins (Eph 1:7).

"Spirit's baptism and precedes water baptism".

Lets look at Acts 19:1-6 "And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism." 4And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Which came first, water baptism or the Holy Spirit? What a strange question for Paul to ask in verse 2 if the Holy Spirit was automatically given at belief. Paul did not have to ask "if" they had been baptized (in water) because that was understood.

Ok, how about Acts 8. Which came first for the Samarians, water baptism or the Holy Spirit? (Acts 8:12,16).

You miss the point I've been telling and retelling. Justificaiton is by faith. Salvation is both justification and sanctification.

He who believes (justification) and is baptised (sanctification) shall be saved. Justification determines sanctification. You show no learning of these critical key terms.

Acts 26:18, "who are sanctified by faith in me". Paul said sanctification is by faith. This is not consistent with your claims. Maybe you need to go back and re-study.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
In the same fashion, neither baptism nor repentance is required for eternal life. John only talks about the things that are important - like faith/belief in Jesus.

Should I believe you or should I believe God?

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized ... for the remission of sins

Acts 22:16 - Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins

Luke 13:3 - Unless you repent you shall likewise perish

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out

Acts 17:30-31 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

II Pet 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

I Pet 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I Pet 4:11 If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.

It doesn't matter what you say or I say, but what does God's word say? That is truth!

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by mman:
[overlooking ascund's reference to John 6:28-29] That doesn't even make sense. How is belief in Jesus equal to obedience?

Sigh. This is what happens when you only read far enough into a post to jump on a word or phrase to launch your own presuppositions. Your oversight failed to use John 6:28-29.

Here, in John 6:28, worldly humans with your self-righteous philosophy asked Jesus what they could do to work the works of God. It was totally human-centered wreaking of works-righteousness.

Jesus took their errant human based question and converted it into the correct Christ-centered response. The only "work of God" is believe on Jesus.

In Matt 10:32, you botched context. Context shows that Jesus is referring to the time of trouble before Israel's national reign. If one confesses Jesus, then Jesus will confess them in His national world-wide Kingdom. Otherwise, take a seat and watch!

Originally posted by mman:
So, what you are saying is that National Israel was not part of the world? How ridiculous! The same gospel was preached to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 1:16).

Another confusion of Bible. God's plans for national Israel were not terminated. God can do two things at once. He will restore national Israel to world prominence. This has nothing to do with the gospel message of faith in Jesus apart from water baptism.

National Israelites will be saved just as Gentiles. There is no contradiction here unless you hold to an "either/or" mentality. There are plenty of "both/and" examples in theology.

Originally posted by mman:
Which came first, water baptism or the Holy Spirit? What a strange question for Paul to ask in verse 2 if the Holy Spirit was automatically given at belief. Paul did not have to ask "if" they had been baptized (in water) because that was understood.

These guys believe John's message about Messiah Jesus and received the remission of sins with respect to their national repentance. John's baptism was not the gospel message of salvation. His message was get ready for the Promised Seed your Messiah. Some believed to salvation as in Acts 2:38 in spite of the restricted message.

This observation is of vital significance to seeing that Acts 2:38 is point designed to national Israel and not a representative norm for Gentiles. You have violated linguistics by ignoring context. The word "believe" means different things in different contexts. In Acts 2:38, it means believe with respect to the Promised Messiah. In most other places it means believe with respect to Jesus' saving work on the Cross.

Violation of basic rules of linguistics leads to BIG ERROR.

Originally posted by mman:
Acts 26:18, "who are sanctified by faith in me". Paul said sanctification is by faith. This is not consistent with your claims.

Goodness - what a statement! Justification is by faith alone apart from works. This faith passively accepts God's free offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Sanctification is by active faith - you call it obedience. Your so-called refutation reveals you lack of understanding the differences between: active and passive faith, justification and sanctification, destiny and rewards.

Through this all, you cling to human-centered denominational rhetoric to interpret scripture rather than using scripture to build a Christ-centered theological system.

Really, you need to stop thrusting your denominational creeds upon scripture.
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
[overlooking ascund's reference to John 6:28-29] That doesn't even make sense. How is belief in Jesus equal to obedience?

Sigh. This is what happens when you only read far enough into a post to jump on a word or phrase to launch your own presuppositions. Your oversight failed to use John 6:28-29.

Here, in John 6:28, worldly humans with your self-righteous philosophy asked Jesus what they could do to work the works of God. It was totally human-centered wreaking of works-righteousness.

Jesus took their errant human based question and converted it into the correct Christ-centered response. The only "work of God" is believe on Jesus.

In Matt 10:32, you botched context. Context shows that Jesus is referring to the time of trouble before Israel's national reign. If one confesses Jesus, then Jesus will confess them in His national world-wide Kingdom. Otherwise, take a seat and watch!

Originally posted by mman:
So, what you are saying is that National Israel was not part of the world? How ridiculous! The same gospel was preached to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 1:16).

Another confusion of Bible. God's plans for national Israel were not terminated. God can do two things at once. He will restore national Israel to world prominence. This has nothing to do with the gospel message of faith in Jesus apart from water baptism.

National Israelites will be saved just as Gentiles. There is no contradiction here unless you hold to an "either/or" mentality. There are plenty of "both/and" examples in theology.

Originally posted by mman:
Which came first, water baptism or the Holy Spirit? What a strange question for Paul to ask in verse 2 if the Holy Spirit was automatically given at belief. Paul did not have to ask "if" they had been baptized (in water) because that was understood.

These guys believe John's message about Messiah Jesus and received the remission of sins with respect to their national repentance. John's baptism was not the gospel message of salvation. His message was get ready for the Promised Seed your Messiah. Some believed to salvation as in Acts 2:38 in spite of the restricted message.

This observation is of vital significance to seeing that Acts 2:38 is point designed to national Israel and not a representative norm for Gentiles. You have violated linguistics by ignoring context. The word "believe" means different things in different contexts. In Acts 2:38, it means believe with respect to the Promised Messiah. In most other places it means believe with respect to Jesus' saving work on the Cross.

Violation of basic rules of linguistics leads to BIG ERROR.

Originally posted by mman:
Acts 26:18, "who are sanctified by faith in me". Paul said sanctification is by faith. This is not consistent with your claims.

Goodness - what a statement! Justification is by faith alone apart from works. This faith passively accepts God's free offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Sanctification is by active faith - you call it obedience. Your so-called refutation reveals you lack of understanding the differences between: active and passive faith, justification and sanctification, destiny and rewards.

Through this all, you cling to human-centered denominational rhetoric to interpret scripture rather than using scripture to build a Christ-centered theological system.

Really, you need to stop thrusting your denominational creeds upon scripture.
Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, where do I begin?

God's plans for national Israel were not terminated. God can do two things at once. He will restore national Israel to world prominence.

Rom 7:1-4, that would be spiritual adultery for the old law and new law to be valid at the same time.

Rom 7:1-4 Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. 4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

The old law with it's requirements was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col 2:14).

Some claim that Acts 2 was only for the Jews. Others claim that baptism was because their sins had already been forgiven. I'm not sure how others try to explain it away, but I'm sure there are other methods.

What is clear in Acts 2 is the establishment of the Church. Prior to Acts 2, it is a future event. In Acts 2, people were added to the church.

Acts 2:41 says at baptism, they were added. Added to what? Acts 2:47 tells us they were added to the Church? Who? The saved (Acts 2:47). When? Verse 41, at baptism. Who added them? The Lord.

When Jesus said in Mark 16:15, "all the world" and "the whole creation", do you think it included the Jews in Acts 2? What was this message that they were to preach? Verse 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Lukes account, Luke 24:47 "and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

Notice, this message was for all nations. Where was it to begin? In Jerusalem.

Jesus said in Acts 1:8, "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth".

What was preached in Acts 2? Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

This message is for all nations, all creation, to the end of the earth.

I expect you to use your usual, all this is out of context routine, but I think any honest reader can see how this fits together.

Do I expect you to accept this. No, based on your previous comments. Truth is always truth, regardless of my acceptance or rejection of it.

I say this with all sincerity. I study God's word to know the truth, not to prove a point or win an argument. God's word is a mine that can never be mined dry. The treasures are endless.

God's word is also simple. I can understand completely what is required to put me into Christ, to have the forgiveness of my sins.

II Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Mark 16:15-16 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned

What could be simpler to understand?

 

[ascund]

Hey mman:

Originally quoted by mman:
Rom 7:1-4, that would be spiritual adultery for the old law and new law to be valid at the same time.

What a laugher!

Israel was a nation way before the Old Law was given. Furthermore, the New Law was promised to national Israel (Jer 31, 33).

Originally quoted by mman:
The old law with it's requirements was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col 2:14).

A second laugher!

Context says that sins are being discussed (v 13). The handwriting of ordinances in verse14 is what is nailed to the Cross. Paul is telling us here that the LEGAL INDICTMENT which contains all the charges and crimes and sins that are against us is what is blotted out at the cross. Scripture is replete on how Jesus paid for our sins at the Cross, not eliminating the law. Even when the New Law is discussed, the Old Law is not abolished – just considered old and ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13).

Originally quoted by mman:
Luke 24:47 "and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

Here, you violate linguistics. Context is for the world. This by default includes Israel. This is part of the “both/and” theology that you wish to convert into an errant “either/or” theology. In Acts 2, Israel (a nation) needs to repent (change their mind) about Messiah Jesus so that they can receive Him. The world (individuals) needs to repent (change their mind) about Jesus for salvation. Two different contexts; two different meanings. When will you not break these simple linguistics rules?

It is amazing to see you deny the truth by resorting to these hermeneutical errors. It is truly sad that you believe your errors are truth.

Behind all of these methodology errors lies the real confusion of justification.

Lloyd

 

[eschatologist]

ascund

I can not believe that the meaning of my analogy bounced so high over your head! What I was referring to was the FACT that if you don't eat there is no cause for digesting! So, digesting is required to sustain life only if there is consumption(eating)-- plain and simple. Yet, in an attempt to stretch your traditional opinion, you took my statement and its meaning totally out of context!

Also 'baptism' was NOT a part of Old Testament needs to have sins removed, just as, because of Christ's sacrifice, we do not need to sacrifice goats and bulls to have sins removed. They were required to abide by the requirements of the Law(which they failed to due many times), just as we are REQUIRED to obey our covenant with Christ(Heb.5:9). Faith is part of that covenant and is NOT a work. Neither is believing, confession, repentance, and baptism a work but they are a parts of faith! Just because there is an action one must do or take in order to believe does mot make it a work to believe, repent, confess, or be baptized, unless someone totally erases the spiritual meaning of these actions as you have done.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by eschatologist:
I can not believe that the meaning of my analogy bounced so high over your head!

Don't be so egotistical. I was correcting your errant analogy!

The verse clearly refers to salvation - not justification. It is clear you cannot define salvation or you would understand how justification (believes) and sanctification (baptised) relate to salvation.

This is Theology 101 stuff.

What I was referring to was the FACT that if you don't eat there is no cause for digesting! So, digesting is required to sustain life only if there is consumption(eating)-- plain and simple.

Yep! This was the foolishness that I was correcting. You put two requirements together where the passage links justification (required) with sanctification (optional but we want to do it as faithfully as possible). Plain and simple!

Yet, in an attempt to stretch your traditional opinion, you took my statement and its meaning totally out of context!

What a laugher. This is the only verse in the Bible that hints of such a misinterpretation. The real sadness is that you wish to build a theology on one wildly stretched verse yanked out of context and then use it to repudiate the great weight of scripture. You were being corrected. I didn't miss it - how could I miss something like that which is so way of target? Huh?

Also 'baptism' was NOT a part of Old Testament needs to have sins removed, just as, because of Christ's sacrifice, we do not need to sacrifice goats and bulls to have sins removed. They were required to abide by the requirements of the Law(which they failed to due many times), just as we are REQUIRED to obey our covenant with Christ(Heb.5:9).

Now you get really ignorant. Romans 4 clearly shows that Abraham was justified by faith apart from the works of the law and without sacrament. In fact, the Law wasn't even given then. What will you do about Adam and Eve? Get real! Since there is but ONE FAITH (Eph 4:5) everybody gets saved the same way. Since Adam, Eve and Abraham were saved without sacraments, we also are saved without sacraments. Get the picture yet?

Faith is part of that covenant and is NOT a work. Neither is believing, confession, repentance, and baptism a work but they are a parts of faith!

Where do you come up with this error? Faith is the requirement to get into the covenant. Faithfulness is the required after you are in the covenant. The faith of justification is PASSIVE; the faith of sanctification is ACTIVE. Have you never done a simple and easy word study on either dikaiow or hagiadzw?? This is pre Theology 101 that you are stumbling over.

No wonder you write such silliness. You didn't get any one part even close.

Justification is the chief article by which the Church stands or falls.
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally quoted by mman:
Rom 7:1-4, that would be spiritual adultery for the old law and new law to be valid at the same time.

What a laugher!

Israel was a nation way before the Old Law was given. Furthermore, the New Law was promised to national Israel (Jer 31, 33).

Originally quoted by mman:
The old law with it's requirements was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col 2:14).

A second laugher!

Context says that sins are being discussed (v 13). The handwriting of ordinances in verse14 is what is nailed to the Cross. Paul is telling us here that the LEGAL INDICTMENT which contains all the charges and crimes and sins that are against us is what is blotted out at the cross. Scripture is replete on how Jesus paid for our sins at the Cross, not eliminating the law. Even when the New Law is discussed, the Old Law is not abolished – just considered old and ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13).

Originally quoted by mman:
Luke 24:47 "and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

Here, you violate linguistics. Context is for the world. This by default includes Israel. This is part of the “both/and” theology that you wish to convert into an errant “either/or” theology. In Acts 2, Israel (a nation) needs to repent (change their mind) about Messiah Jesus so that they can receive Him. The world (individuals) needs to repent (change their mind) about Jesus for salvation. Two different contexts; two different meanings. When will you not break these simple linguistics rules?

It is amazing to see you deny the truth by resorting to these hermeneutical errors. It is truly sad that you believe your errors are truth.

Behind all of these methodology errors lies the real confusion of justification.

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Laugh all you want. Argue with Paul, he made the statement. You said nothing of significance or relevance to explain away Rom 7.

If a wise man contends with a foolish man, Whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace. - Prov 29:9

Let's try to keep this amicable. Your condesending statements do not promote peace or a friendly environment.

No interpretation can be forced upon Hebrews 8:13 that brings it into conflict with other clear passages, even in this very epistle.

For example, “Now if perfection had been [imperfect tense – activity in the past] attainable through the Levitical priesthood. . . ” (Heb. 7:11).

Notice he did not say perfection is attainable, but "had been".

The oath by which Christ was appointed high priest was “after the law,” i.e., in the post-Mosaic period (Heb. 7:28).

Christ was not appointed high priest during the law, but after the law.

“If the first covenant [law of Moses] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb. 8:7).

The first covenant “had ordinances” (Heb. 9:1), etc. These phrases obviously view the Mosaic regime as a by-gone system – from the divine viewpoint.

In Heb 8, the inspired writer had just quoted from Jeremiah that foretold the coming of a “new” covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). The writer of Hebrews, therefore, might well have been constructing an argument in the following vein.

When Jeremiah spoke of the coming of a ‘new’ covenant, he implied that the covenant ‘made with the fathers’ was the ‘old’ one. It was "new" as opposed to something "old". Now it is a well known fact that anything ‘old’ is near to the point of passing away. Even the prophet Jeremiah, then, hinted that the Jewish covenant would not abide perpetually.

Perhaps no verse is as clear as Heb 10:9, "then He said, "'Behold, I have come to do your will.' He abolishes the first in order to establish the second."

He is clearly talking about taking away the first law in order to establish the second.

When you compare Col 2:14 to Eph 2:14-15, it makes it even more plain, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

What divided the Jews and Gentiles? The law. The great mystery was how the wall that separated the Jews and Gentiles (old law) would be removed so making peace.

Eph 3 talks about the mystery how the Gentiles were fellow heirs through the gospel and this is accomplished through the church.

The Jews in Acts 2 were added to the church at baptism (Acts 2:41, 47). I Cor 12:13 tells us that we are baptized into one body (church). This is a fulfillment of the commission Jesus gave, "And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Christ has truly torn down that wall (the old law) that once was a source of enmity, thus making peace.

[ August 24, 2005, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: mman ]

 

[ascund]

Hey mman

Are you so blind. Many laws exist at the same time.

Has the Old Law ended? Let's see what Bible says.

Paul establishes the law! Rom 3:31.

Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The law exists until the last jot or tittle is fulfilled (Mat 5:17-18). There is a lot of unfulfilled prophecy regarding Israel in God's Word.

Even when the New Covenant is the focus, the law is not dead. It is described as old and ready to vanish away (Heb 8:8).

The Law is holy, spiritual and good (Rom 7:12-14).

The law is not against the promises of God (Gal 3:21).

The law is good, if used lawfully (1Tim 1:8).

You have a wrong view of the law, covenants and dispensations if you think the law is dead or cannot comprehend how God can do two things at once.

The holy, righteous and perfect law exposes our sin and depravity. It then drives us to Christ. The law provides guidance for all believers. Calvin saw this as the third major aspect of the law.

The law does not contradict grace. Don't be fooled. Justification by the law is in sound opposition to justification by grace.

I expext errant replies only if you cannot comprehend the basics.

So which one are you wedded to ?
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Originally by ascund:

Are you so blind. Many laws exist at the same time.

Lloyd,

bmerr here. So which law is mankind amenable to today? Should we observe the Lord's supper alongside the ritual sacrifice of bulls and goats?

Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The law exists until the last jot or tittle is fulfilled (Mat 5:17-18).

Question: Did Jesus fulfill the law? If He did, what prevents it from being taken out of the way? If He did not, what part of the law did Jesus fail to fulfill?

Gotta run.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

hey bmerr

Originally posted by bmerr:
So which law is mankind amenable to today? Should we observe the Lord's supper alongside the ritual sacrifice of bulls and goats?

We should look at each of the covenants in CONTEX (what else?).

The Mosaic Law was given to national Israel. So not applicable to us today. It is still alive and well though.

The Noahic covenant was give to all. So we need to do all that it commands.

The Abrahamic covenant was given to Abraham in three parts: worldwide promise of blessing, national Israel, personal blessings. We Gentiles only fit in on the worldwide promise of blessing via the Promised Seed.

The Adamic Covenant. The Promised Seed.

So when Paul established the Law (Rom 3:31), whaat did he mean? Not the sacrificial system, but only as it reflects the Law Giver. We can use the holy, good and perfect law (Rom 7:12) wisely (1 Tim 1:7) in our lives.

Believers only are under the law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21, Gal 6:2). Your instance upon the law of Christ prevents you from seeing the riches, glory, personal application, and the Mosaic Law's reflection of its Law Giver. The either/or hermeneutic has many pitfalls.

Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

Are you so blind. Many laws exist at the same time.

Has the Old Law ended? Let's see what Bible says.

Paul establishes the law! Rom 3:31.

Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The law exists until the last jot or tittle is fulfilled (Mat 5:17-18). There is a lot of unfulfilled prophecy regarding Israel in God's Word.

Even when the New Covenant is the focus, the law is not dead. It is described as old and ready to vanish away (Heb 8:8).

The Law is holy, spiritual and good (Rom 7:12-14).

The law is not against the promises of God (Gal 3:21).

The law is good, if used lawfully (1Tim 1:8).

You have a wrong view of the law, covenants and dispensations if you think the law is dead or cannot comprehend how God can do two things at once.

The holy, righteous and perfect law exposes our sin and depravity. It then drives us to Christ. The law provides guidance for all believers. Calvin saw this as the third major aspect of the law.

The law does not contradict grace. Don't be fooled. Justification by the law is in sound opposition to justification by grace.

I expext errant replies only if you cannot comprehend the basics.

So which one are you wedded to ?
Lloyd

Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Jesus fulfilled the old covenant. He did not destroy it, he fulfilled it. What is the difference in destroying a contract and fulfilling a contract. Is a contract binding after it has been fulfilled.

Gal 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This clearly teaches that the law was added till the Seed would come and after Jesus came, we would no longer be under the tutor (law).

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

What divided the Jews and Gentiles? The law. The great mystery was how the wall that separated the Jews and Gentiles (old law) would be removed so making peace.

Eph 3 talks about the mystery how the Gentiles were fellow heirs through the gospel and this is accomplished through the church.

And Hebrews, and previously addressed, shows that the old law was done away and talks of it in past tense.

Jesus' commission to the apostles was to go the whole creation, all the world, and all nations beginning at Jerusalem. What were they to preach? The Gospel. What was the proper response to the gospel? Belief, repentance, and baptism (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:46-47).

What did they begin to preach at Jerusalem? The Gospel? What were the believers (Acts 2:37) instructed to do? Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, JUST ACCORDING TO JESUS' COMMISSION .

Again, this was to be preached to all nations, the whole creation, all the world, and all nations beginning at Jerusalem.

Who could possibly be excluded from this list?

 

[ascund]

Hey mman

You miss the thrust of my post regarding the law.

I do not preach the LAW. Christian have been crucified to the Law and become alive to Christ. It is we who have died - not the LAW.

This is why Paul can wish to establish the law (Rom 3:31) and use it wisely (1 Tim 1:8). The Law is holy, and good and perfect (Rom 7:12). Or have you cut these verses out of your theology?

One must use all of God's Word!
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

You miss the thrust of my post regarding the law.

I do not preach the LAW. Christian have been crucified to the Law and become alive to Christ. It is we who have died - not the LAW.

This is why Paul can wish to establish the law (Rom 3:31) and use it wisely (1 Tim 1:8). The Law is holy, and good and perfect (Rom 7:12). Or have you cut these verses out of your theology?

One must use all of God's Word!
Lloyd

You say the Law didn't die. Paul said it did. In fact, Jesus put it to death.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

What separated the Jews from the Gentiles? The law. That law died because Jesus put it to death!