Saving Faith

[JSM17]

The Net Bible:

2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized82 in the name of Jesus Christ83 for84 the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.85

Footnote 84 says:

Quote:
84tn There is debate over the meaning of εἰς in the prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (eis afesin twn Jamartiwn Jumwn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here. ExSyn 369-71 discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works – an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); (2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts – especially in this text (cf. 2:41); (3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness count against it; (4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BDAG 290 s.v. εἰς 4.f.

This does not deal with the structure of the Greek, it is opinion based on salvation by faith alone. Why not deal with the grammar. How about dealing with the points of those who were quoted as being Greek scholars at least people we all know. Lets start with Bruce Metzger:

Bruce Metzger was the editor of the Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. He is currently teaching (was when questioned) at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey. He wrote, "In reply to your recent inquiry may I say that, in my view, the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion' in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceding verbs."

So who is right the people from Netbible or Bruce Metzger?

 

[DHK]

This does not deal with the structure of the Greek, it is opinion based on salvation by faith alone. Why not deal with the grammar. How about dealing with the points of those who were quoted as being Greek scholars at least people we all know. Lets start with Bruce Metzger:

Bruce Metzger was the editor of the Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. He is currently teaching (was when questioned) at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey. He wrote, "In reply to your recent inquiry may I say that, in my view, the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion' in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceding verbs."

So who is right the people from Netbible or Bruce Metzger?

Read the NET comments again, and then read Metzger again. It could apply. But it doesn't. What determines the meaning of a word. It is context. Without context you cannot determine the meaning of many phrases or words in the Bible: wine, conversation, "eating my flesh," etc. Only context determines the meanings of such words and/or phrases. Grammar plays no significant role here. And the grammar in Acts 2:38 means nothing in the light of the totality of Scripture. The rest of Scripture condemns your position.

 

[billwald]

>2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized82 in the name of Jesus Christ83 for84 the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.85

True, but does not claim to be the exclusive route. For example, John the Baptist was apparently conceived as saved.

 

[Darron Steele]

Read the NET comments again, and then read Metzger again. It could apply. But it doesn't. What determines the meaning of a word. It is context. Without context you cannot determine the meaning of many phrases or words in the Bible: wine, conversation, "eating my flesh," etc. Only context determines the meanings of such words and/or phrases. Grammar plays no significant role here. And the grammar in Acts 2:38 means nothing in the light of the totality of Scripture. The rest of Scripture condemns your position.

You have hit on one of several important problems with JSM17's position.

1) Acts 2:38 can be translated in multiple ways which affect meaning. Deny it all s/he might wish to, the 1769 KJV, NKJV, and similar translations at Acts 2:38 do not show the only valid way to translate the passage. There are other ways the passage can -- and has -- been translated. A different way has been used in two other parts of the world for centuries. The strict reliance on one of those ways makes JSM17's position all the more tenuous.

2) Acts 2:38 in NONE of the valid ways to translate it says the likes of `Everyone who fails to be baptized shall not receive remission of sins.' To adapt JSM17's preferred NKJV here with the added inference, it would say the likes of `Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, as everyone who fails to receive baptism shall not receive remission of sins ever; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' The passage does not say that -- nor require it.

3) Acts 10:43 DOES say "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). JSM17's position denies that everyone who believes on Jesus Christ receives remission of sins.

4) JSM17's position adds to Scripture at Acts 2:38 the likes of `as everyone who fails to receive baptism shall not receive remission of sins ever.' As JSM17 applies that inference even to believers on Jesus Christ, the position s/he asserts is directly contrary to Acts 10:43.

5) The inference `as everyone who fails to receive baptism shall not receive remission of sins ever' is not required by Acts 2:38. As has been shown to JSM17, even if Acts 2:38 is best translated the NKJV way, it does not mean that a believer on Jesus Christ will not receive remission of sins after their natural life. That is not the only option, but it has to happen somehow: Acts 10:43 expressly says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

6) JSM17's repeated response to Acts 10:43 has been to try to divert attention from it.

JSM17's view is dependent upon
-- one way of translating a specific passage when it can be validly translated multiple ways
-- an inference of one way of translation that is not required,
-- which also is directly contrary to another passage of Scripture,
-- diverting attention away from a passage that JSM17's position is incompatible with.

 

[JSM17]

It is ironic that you accuse me of ignoring the passage in Acts 10, yet you admitt that this passages doe not proclaim salvation by faith alone, yet you insist that salvation is by faith alone and you keep pointing at this passage as if it helps you to establish that position.

It will not be me who accuses you of denying plain bible truth about the purpose of baptism, it will be God.

It amazes me that you can have hundreds of different views on salvation and how one comes to it and all still be of the one true church.

I would love to see all the baptist denominations and all the Lutheran denominations and methodists and catholic and presbyterian and church of God and all the evangelical's who claim to the one true church and see them come together from now on and worship and fellowship and have bible study together and to take all their differing confessions of faith and unit them if indeed you are all part of the one true church.

We however know better than that because it would not last a month before division would begin just as it did to begin with.

How many divided Baptist churches are there?

If the church is the savd people from the denominations then Christ is indeed divided. I do not see how John 17:23 fits in this idea.

In fact many will say that we all agree yet one group sprinkles babies for the remission of sins (Lutherans) while another says it is not for the remission of sins but sprinkles them as a dedication. Baptist's say that it is just sign of salvation to those who believe, yet all other who sprinkle babies are your brethren, yet you cannot even agree on that issue.

Do the baptist's call out on the Lutherans like they do the church of Christ for teaching the essentiality of baptism?

Where is the unity in your diversity on Bible?

While you chastise those who point to plain scripture for authority for positions clearly seen, you leave alone those who you claim fellowship with who infuse babies for two different reasons which cannot be held by scripture.

Division is sin, if you are divided with your Brethren then they are not your Brethren. So how about all your Baptist brethren who you do not agree with.

 

[EdSutton]

True, but does not claim to be the exclusive route. For example, John the Baptist was apparently conceived as saved.

I don't believe that is exactly what the text says about John.

You might want to read that one again.

For I believe that salvation/justification is always said to based on repentance/faith, in Scripture. (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4; John 3:13-18; Rom. 4:1-8; Eph. 2:8-9; and many other verses)

Ed

 

[Darron Steele]

It is ironic that you accuse me of ignoring the passage in Acts 10, yet you admitt that this passages doe not proclaim salvation by faith alone, yet you insist that salvation is by faith alone and you keep pointing at this passage as if it helps you to establish that position.

I do not accuse you of ignoring that passage; quite the contrary, you have been very aggressive in trying to divert attention from the passage.

I never said I teach salvation by faith alone. I do not like that term. While the position well-explained is true, it gets misunderstood too often for my liking, and the Bible does not teach it that way.

I teach what the Scriptures teach. Acts 10:43 says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

As that is what Scripture teaches, that is what I teach.

I simply refer to the passage because your position is contrary to it. You deny that believers on Jesus Christ will receive remission of sins if for some reason they are not baptized. In other words, bluntly, `Not everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins.'

My goal is simply to keep people from being convinced into views which are contra-Scriptural. That is especially the case when a contra-Scriptural view can and does have great harm on the church and its people.

It will not be me who accuses you of denying plain bible truth about the purpose of baptism, it will be God.

Not according to what I read in His Word.

I am very comfortable with my position on baptism's role in salvation in light of Scripture.

It amazes me that you can have hundreds of different views on salvation and how one comes to it and all still be of the one true church.

I would love to see all the baptist denominations and all the Lutheran denominations and methodists and catholic and presbyterian and church of God and all the evangelical's who claim to the one true church and see them come together from now on and worship and fellowship and have bible study together and to take all their differing confessions of faith and unit them if indeed you are all part of the one true church.

We however know better than that because it would not last a month before division would begin just as it did to begin with.

How many divided Baptist churches are there?

If the church is the savd people from the denominations then Christ is indeed divided. I do not see how John 17:23 fits in this idea.

In fact many will say that we all agree yet one group sprinkles babies for the remission of sins (Lutherans) while another says it is not for the remission of sins but sprinkles them as a dedication. Baptist's say that it is just sign of salvation to those who believe, yet all other who sprinkle babies are your brethren, yet you cannot even agree on that issue.

Do the baptist's call out on the Lutherans like they do the church of Christ for teaching the essentiality of baptism?

I do not know if you are talking to me or to everyone.

It looks like you are upset and just want to start bashing groups. I am sorry that you feel that way.

I can tell you that pointing out that all church groups disagree does not prove that we should all go join the Churches of Christ.

No one is going after the Lutheran position because no Lutheran is over here trying to push Lutheran precepts or get us to join a Lutheran church group.

You would find out that if you stopped pushing the Churches of Christ and/or their precepts, you would find that Church of Christ precepts do not get as much of a `bulls-eye.'

Where is the unity in your diversity on Bible?

While you chastise those who point to plain scripture for authority for positions clearly seen, you leave alone those who you claim fellowship with who infuse babies for two different reasons which cannot be held by scripture.

Division is sin, if you are divided with your Brethren then they are not your Brethren. So how about all your Baptist brethren who you do not agree with.

This is an easy one for me.

I owe the Churches of Christ for this one, ironically. As an atheist, I always heard from the pulpit about how we should examine every position in the light of Scripture. The challenge: `Assume nothing because someone said so; examine everything in Scripture, then and only then accept it.' While not always practiced, it is a nice ideal.

When I became a Christian I took that approach. Ultimately, it brought me to reconsider the centuries-old tradition that disagreement requires division. I found out that Scripture most certainly does not teach that.

To disagree and to divide are two different things. Many people assume that they are the same. They are not. It is in our carnal flesh to want to divide due to others disagreeing with us. It is the call of Scripture to resist those urges.

Many people see such passages that prohibit divisions as saying `Agree with each other,' or more commonly, `Agree with me.' Many people see such passages as Ephesians 4:2-3 as saying `Strive to stay agreed with each other on a whole bunch of religious opinions.'

No; passages that prohibit division prohibit exactly that: we are to refrain from acts of dividing. Likewise, passages that call us to strive to maintain unity do not have an `agreement exemption.' They mean what they say and precisely what they say.

I could say a lot more. My church unity study is presently 292 pages.

One thing that needs addressed: Christ is not divided. We might like to think that we can exclude from the Lord's church based on whom we choose to accept or reject, but we cannot. It is not our church; it is the Lord's church. Our groupings do not change anything. There is only one church. Everyone that believes on Him is added by Him to His one church -- Acts 2:47. All Christians are put by Him into one church, and are in one church, whether we want to accept it or not.

How can I maintain fellowship with Baptists, Methodists, Christians in the Churches of Christ, etc.? Simple: I do not give in to the carnal urge to divide from those whom I disagree with. I remember that those people serve the same Jesus Christ that I do. When we remember that we are all in this to serve Jesus Christ, it becomes pretty easy to agree to disagree enough to do what needs done.

I hope you have a better day.

 

[RAdam]

So Abraham wasn't saved until Genesis 15:6? So Abraham followed God around displaying a much stronger faith than most Christians today, erecting altars along the way and worshipping God, yet he was in a perishing condition?

 

[Alive in Christ]

"We are saved by faith when that faith has moved us to obey the conditions of salvation."

False.

We are saved by faith in Christ alone the moment we place our faith in Christ alone.

Period.

Our subsequent growth...Godly attitudes and behaviors...have absolutely NOTHING to do with our justification.

Faith alone means...faith ALONE.

 

[RAdam]

Isn't placing faith in Christ fullfilling some condition of salvation? I mean, you say that salvation (eternal) is dependent upon one placing faith in Christ. What else is that but a condition of salvation? When one fullfills this condition, say you, they shall be saved in an absolute eternal sense. That is, and must be by definition, salvation conditional upon the work and will of man.

 

[webdog]

So Abraham wasn't saved until Genesis 15:6? So Abraham followed God around displaying a much stronger faith than most Christians today, erecting altars along the way and worshipping God, yet he was in a perishing condition?

Wasn't this the case with Jesus' 12, minus the altars?

 

[webdog]

Isn't placing faith in Christ fullfilling some condition of salvation? I mean, you say that salvation (eternal) is dependent upon one placing faith in Christ. What else is that but a condition of salvation? When one fullfills this condition, say you, they shall be saved in an absolute eternal sense. That is, and must be by definition, salvation conditional upon the work and will of man.

Absolutely it's a condition...and it is placed there by God throughout Scripture. No, salvation must not be conditioned upon the work and will of man. First, faith is not a work, and second, without the work of the Holy Spirit FIRST, man would never seek God.

 

[RAdam]

So are you saying the 11 weren't saved? Remember in John 6 where Jesus tells the 12, "have I not chosen you twelve, but one of you is a devil." Judas Iscariot was a devil right then, and would keep on being a devil. In Matthew 16 Jesus asks the disciples whom men said he was. They answered, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets." Jesus then asked whom the disciples said he was. Simon Peter says, "thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus then tells him that flesh and blood didn't reveal it, but the Father in heaven. Now, what you are basically saying is this man here, who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is yet in a perishing state, the same state Judas was in. However, over and over again in scripture, there is a distinction made between Judas and the 11. The 11 were saved men, born from above, while Judas was a devil, unregenerate, and yet still under condemnation.

 

[RAdam]

Absolutely it's a condition...and it is placed there by God throughout Scripture. No, salvation must not be conditioned upon the work and will of man. First, faith is not a work, and second, without the work of the Holy Spirit FIRST, man would never seek God.

While I agree that man wouldn't seek God without the work of the Holy Spirit, I still object to a condition placed upon man for eternal salvation. I find over and over again in scripture that faith in Christ, that belief in Christ and the Father that sent Him, are evidences of present possession of everlasting life, not prerequisites to gain everlasting life.

 

[webdog]

So are you saying the 11 weren't saved? Remember in John 6 where Jesus tells the 12, "have I not chosen you twelve, but one of you is a devil." Judas Iscariot was a devil right then, and would keep on being a devil. In Matthew 16 Jesus asks the disciples whom men said he was. They answered, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets." Jesus then asked whom the disciples said he was. Simon Peter says, "thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus then tells him that flesh and blood didn't reveal it, but the Father in heaven. Now, what you are basically saying is this man here, who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is yet in a perishing state, the same state Judas was in. However, over and over again in scripture, there is a distinction made between Judas and the 11. The 11 were saved men, born from above, while Judas was a devil, unregenerate, and yet still under condemnation.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying it is possible to follow around God (as you said) and not be saved. I don't believe the Apostles were saved the moment they followed Christ. I started a thread on this some time ago, and nobody could really tell me when the 11 were saved. Even after witnessing Christ's miracles they questioned "who is this man"? After His death, they returned to their old lifestyles. Point being, heeding the call to follow HIm was not the moment of salvation, it occured some point during His ministry or at Pentecost.

 

[RAdam]

So these men forsook all and followed him through thick and thin, even following him when just about everybody else left in John 6, yet they weren't saved eternally? That's a hard point to make. Not to mention that Peter could see who Jesus Christ was and is, and the Lord tells him this is because the Father revealed it to him. You might point to Judas Iscariot, but he is always shown as an exception to the group. In fact in John 6 Jesus says Judas was, at that time, a devil. Contrast that with Nathanael, in whom Jesus said was no guile.

To suggest that men that geniunely believed that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God (which in scripture is probably the key test of one being a born again child of God) are not saved eternally is to really suggest something that doesn't line up with scripture.

 

[webdog]

So these men forsook all and followed him through thick and thin, even following him when just about everybody else left in John 6, yet they weren't saved eternally? That's a hard point to make. Not to mention that Peter could see who Jesus Christ was and is, and the Lord tells him this is because the Father revealed it to him. You might point to Judas Iscariot, but he is always shown as an exception to the group. In fact in John 6 Jesus says Judas was, at that time, a devil. Contrast that with Nathanael, in whom Jesus said was no guile.

To suggest that men that geniunely believed that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God (which in scripture is probably the key test of one being a born again child of God) are not saved eternally is to really suggest something that doesn't line up with scripture.

You have many passages in the Gospels to reconcile, then. Even up until thte days before His crucifixion they didnt' understand He was going to die and be resurrected. Isn't that a staple of the saving Gospel?

Also, please debate the points I'm actually saying. I have never once said genuine believers can be, and are not saved eternally.

 

[Allan]

You have many passages in the Gospels to reconcile, then. Even up until thte days before His crucifixion they didnt' understand He was going to die and be resurrected. Isn't that a staple of the saving Gospel?

Also, please debate the points I'm actually saying. I have never once said genuine believers can be, and are not saved eternally.

Even after the Crucifiction Jesus Himself tells then they did not believe. However the NT salvation through the blood of Christ, His resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit which Jesus Himself says has not yet been given and that is why He 'must' go away. It is only then the Holy Spirit will be imparted and thus indwelling believers. Therefore the salvation of the NT can only be after the giving of the Holy Spirit which places us into His body (and this makes us one in and with Christ - which is because of His death, burial, and resurrection). They were the proclaimers of the New Covenant and thus partakers of this NEW Covenant.

 

[RAdam]

I John 5:1 - Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

Matthew 16:16 - And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Gonna have a hard time arguing that Simon Peter wasn't already born of God by the time Matthew 16:16 rolled around.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible doctrine of justification by faith is like the doctrine of love in that, instead of proving obedience is not essential, it proves the opposite. It shows that faith will not save until it moves us to obey. Justification by faith includes obedience; it does not exclude it. We are saved by faith when that faith has moved us to obey the conditions of salvation. Without that obedience, we do not have a saving faith.

That is true in a sense. Paul says in Romans 10 that our belief and confession "results in salvation".

But in the context that Paul lived - the "works of the law" meaning that he opposed as offerred by Jewish leaders - was not of the form "our WORKS is that we believe God and confess our faith in the Messiah". That is in fact what THEY called "no works at all'.

Paul's arguement for being saved or justified "apart from the works of the law" was saying that no amount of tithe paying or honoring parents or Sabbath keeping could of itself save anyone. Only faith in the finished work of the Messiah - Jesus Christ - could save.

Now days however - some Calvinists like to imagine that faith in God and confession are a "work" that somehow earns a person salvation if they are in anyway prerequisite steps to salvation the way Romans 10 describes them.

in Christ,

Bob