Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Morant61 | 66760 | ||
Greetings Teacher! I'm glad you caught the humor! :-) While the word 'alone' may not be found in Eph. 2:8-9, the following phrase is most definitely found - 'not by works'. Yet, you seem to interpret James to say that one is saved by faith AND works. Both cannot be true. I believe that the problem is that you have taken James' comments out of context. I have written on this issue many times before, so allow me to quote from an older post on this point. ********************************************** James isn't teaching that works save, but that those who are saved will work. In fact, James 2:1-13 makes it clear that the 'works' being referred to concern the way we treat others. In this light, James says, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" - James 2:14. To the objector in v. 18, James says, "....Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." Because, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." - James 2:17. Thus, the context is clearly speaking to those who claim to have faith, but do not live it. James is simply saying to them that they don't really have faith because faith works. Which is fully in accord with Eph. 2:10. There Paul, says that once a person is saved that they will produce good works. Verse 24, simply says that faith which works is proven true. ********************************************* Rom. 4, Gal. 2, Eph. 2:8-9, and more, make it clear that works do not and cannot save us. We cannot ignore the phrase 'not by works' and make it mean 'not by faith alone'. So, we are left with either two options. Either: 1) James and Paul contradict each other. Or, 2) James has been misunderstood, and is in full agreement with Paul. The latter is much more likly since the context of James 2 deals with those who 'say they have faith, but have no works'. Even Paul went on in Eph. 2:10 to say that those who are saved will produce good works. The only problem Paul had with works was from those who would say that they were saved by them. This he denied emphatically. I hope this helps! If would like to read more detail about my view of James, simply search under my username and 'works' and 'faith'. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Teacher | 66761 | ||
Your response is very clear and answers my question. You say, "the following phrase is most definitely found - 'not by works'". I disagree. The passage from the NASB says, "not as a result of works". This may just be inconsistency in translations but to me this means that salvation is not a result of works but that good works are produced from our faith and our faith results in salvation. Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. I believe that God has provided a means for man to reestablish a relationship with Him through Christ. This act is by God's grace. Through our faith in Christ, as the only begotten of the Father, the propitiation for sin, our mediator, and our redeemer we are saved. This faith acts upon Christ's teaching and produces good works which are summed up in the following. Matt 22:36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." These two commandments contain the attitude necessary to worship and obey God and to treat each other as we would want to be treated, in all things. |
||||||
3 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Morant61 | 66769 | ||
Greetings Teacher! Concerning the phrase, 'not by works', this is the literal translation of the first phrase in Eph. 2:9. So, it is correct and it is found in the text. :-) However, my friend, notice that your intepretation of Eph. 2:8-9 actually ends up claiming what the text explicitly denies, i.e. - that works have any role to play in our salvation. Allow me to lay out the literal translation of Eph. 2:8-9: For you have been saved by grace, through faith, and this not from you, gift of God; not by works, that no one may boast. I have attempted to lay out these two verses visually in such a way that one can see the relationship between the phrases. The verbal idea is 'you have been saved'. Everything else in these two verses is a modification or explanation of how that salvation has been accomplished. It is said to be: 1) by Grace 2) through faith 3) not from you 4) not by works. Simply put, there is no grammatical way to make these verse say that our works have any role whatsoever to play in our salvation. The logical order as spelled out in these two verses is quite clear: grace - faith - salvation - works Any attempt to change this order becomes 'another Gospel' as Paul preached in Galatians. Scripture is clear about this my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Teacher | 66774 | ||
This makes sense, thanks. If your literal translation is directly from the Greek I really appreciate this because it helps a great deal to see how it was originally written. | ||||||
5 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Morant61 | 66777 | ||
Greetings Teacher! It is directly from the Greek. The forum is always looking for new ideas to improve the forum. I had suggested once that maybe the forum could make use of Greek and Hebrew fonts. It would make it much easier to discuss the original text of a verse. Alas, it was not possible right now. :-) You must be an early bird like me my friend! :-) Unfortunately, I work third shift, so even on my days off I tend to be up late and rise early. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Teacher | 66780 | ||
Yes, I am an early bird and have been since age 13 from delivering newspapers. I have a question for you. What is the literal Greek translation of Acts 2:38 Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thanks. |
||||||
7 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Morant61 | 66781 | ||
Greetings Teacher! Newspapers! I remember them well! :-) I had a route during the blizzard of 78 and I was the only one who delievered all of his papers that day! Acts 2:38 literally reads: "And Peter to them, 'Repent (plural verb) and let each of you be baptized (singular verb) in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your (plural pronoun) sins and you will receive (plural verb) the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" I am assuming that your interest is based upon the relationship between this verse and the salvation/baptism question. There is a grammatical anomaly in this verse. The command to repent is a second person plural imperative - in other words a plural you. Unfortunately, there is no way in English to distinguish between a 2nd person plural and a 2nd person singular. To use the King James method of ?you? and ?ye,? the command here is ?Repent Ye!? The phrase ?for the remission of your sins? is also a 2nd person plural as indicated by both the definite article and the personal pronoun. So, obviously, the command to repent and the phrase concerning the forgiveness of sins belong together. However, the command to "be baptized" is a 3rd person singular imperative. This simply means that the phrase "for the remission of sins" does not go with the command to be baptized at all, rather it belongs with the command to repent. If I phrased this verse in modern English, it might go something like this: "Peter replied, 'Repent (and by the way let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" In effect, the command 'to be baptized' is an added thought which does not grammatically go with the rest of the sentence. It would be like me telling a room of kindergarteners: "Everyone pick you your toys - Timmy, stopping hitting your sister - and after you pick up your toys you will get a snack." Do you see the significance of this? The command to Timmy interrupted the flow of my sentence. His stopping hitting his sister was not a condition for receiving a snack, only picking up the toys was a condition. In the same way, failure to acount for the grammar of Acts 2:38 has caused much misunderstanding. The forgiveness of sins and reception of the 'gift of the Holy Spirit' are a result of repentance, not baptism. This also makes sense of Acts 10, where individuals are said to have received 'the gift of the Holy Spirit' (the same exact phrase as in Acts 2:38) before they were baptized in water. I hope this helps my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Teacher | 66805 | ||
I too had a route during the blizzard of 78 and no, you had company. I was able to make my delivery while suffering from pneumonia. My dad had to drive me around because I would be out of breath after only taking a few steps. As to your response, I am not an English or Greek scholar, but I have some difficulty with your explanation of the syntax of the passage. Acts 2:38 literally reads: "And Peter to them, 'Repent (plural verb) and let each of you be baptized (singular verb) in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your (plural pronoun) sins and you will receive (plural verb) the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" 'Repent (plural verb): This is a plural verb because it should apply to the crowd to whom Peter addresses the statement. and: a conjunction which joins the commands "repent" and "be baptized" meaning both are necessary. let each of you be baptized (singular verb): This is a singular verb because it modifies the phrase "each of you", 'each' and 'you' being singular. The practical application here would be individual responsibility to "repent and be baptized". The crowd could possibly repent as a group but could not be baptized as a group. This would occur on an individual basis. in the name of Jesus Christ : The authority by which baptism is performed (Mt 28.19). for forgiveness of your (plural pronoun) sins : This applies to the crowd for they all were under sin (those who may have already been baptized into John's baptism would need to be again into Christ, Acts 19.1-5). and you will receive (plural verb) the gift of the Holy Spirit: this is plural because it was directed toward the crowd and the promise was to all mankind (Acts 2.17). It would be interesting to sit down with a reputable English and Greek scholar to dicusss this further. |
||||||
9 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Morant61 | 66814 | ||
Greetings Teacher! We must be about the same age if we were both delivering papers in 78! :-) I hope you aren't implying that I'm not a reputable English nor Greek scholar! ;-) I do need to make one clarification in your comments. The pronoun 'you' associated with 'each' is actually plural. Now, on to your observations. If a command can be given to a crowd to repent, then why can't a command be given to a crowd to be baptized? This question is especially pertinent if one believes that baptism is 'necessary' for salvation. In this case, both repentance and baptism would be necessary for the crowd to be saved. Therefore, one would expect both imperatives to be plural, yet they are not. What does a real Greek scholar say about this verse? Here are A. T. Robertson's comments on Acts 2:38: ************************************************** "Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ"" Source - A.T. Robertson's, "Word Pictures" ************************************************ It simply makes more sense logically, grammatically, and Scripturally to see a break in the thought here and to understand that baptism plays no role in the promises of 'forgiveness of sins' and the reception of the 'gift of the Holy Spirit'. Else, how do you explain that those in Acts 10 received the 'gift of the Holy Spirit' prior to being baptized? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
10 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Teacher | 66821 | ||
To begin from the bottom up, the events in Acts 10, dealing with Cornelius and his household, are explained in Acts 10:45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. Context is of vital importance here to get the meaning of the events that take place. God's purpose was to show "those of the circumcision" that salvation was for all, Jew and Gentile alike, and if you read the entire chapter explaining Peter's visions and Cornelius', it should become evident. Yes, Cornelius and his household were baptized with the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, BUT, no where does it say they were saved at that point. Peter ordered them (10:38, NASB) to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which in Acts 2:38 we are told is for the remission of sin. The events involving Cornelius are only a small part of the whole when it comes to determining the importance of baptism. We must look at the whole. It may "simply make sense logically, grammatically, and scripturally" to you but, if all the evidence of the bible is included in your understanding, it doesn't in God's plan. The command to be baptized could have been addressed to the crowd. In some translations it actually is. The New Revised Standard version says, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." If the passage was worded, "Repent, and 'all of you' be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" it would have. Why it wasn't I don't know but I feel that obeying the commands of the Lord is an individual decision and by saying 'each one of you' may have made it more personal and emphasized the need for indeed, each one to obey. Regardless of translation, the message remains the same, repent AND be baptized FOR the remission of sin THEN you will receive the promise. The comments made by A. T. Robertson say nothing about baptism not being required for salvation. He says, "The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life (which is repentance). Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place (not before because it would be of no effect), and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ"". It is strange that he omits the part about "for the remission of sin", which is the purpose of baptism, because without the performance of this act we do not come in contact with the death of Christ (Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 2 Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead)and therefore our sin is not remitted. You say, "I do need to make one clarification in your comments. The pronoun 'you' associated with 'each' is actually plural." The word "each" denotes singularity so couldn't we say "each one (singular) of you (the crowd, plural)? The command to be baptized would still apply, regardless. I don't know you well enough to make the determination of your scholastic achievements. Yep, we may be about the same age. |
||||||
11 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Morant61 | 66825 | ||
Greetings Teacher! I was just joking about the scholastic achievements! :-) I do know Greek, but am not a scholar by stretch of the imagination! :-) Allow me to narrow back in again to the relationship between Acts 2:38 and Acts 10. Your interpretation of Acts 10 simply can't work for one very simple reason. If Acts 2:38 means what you believe it does, then reception of the 'gift of the Holy Spirit'and 'forgiveness of sin' are a result of obedience to both commands - 'to repent' and 'to be baptized'. However, this is not the case in Acts 10. They received the gift of the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized. Therefore, one can only conclude that Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is necessary for either 'forgiveness of sins' or the reception of the 'gift of the Holy Spirit'. Only repentance is required for both, which makes perfect sense grammatically. I have proposed this question to many on the forum who have tried to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet not one has been able to explain why in Acts 2:38 one must do BOTH to receive the promises listed, yet the individuals in Acts 10 did not do both prior to receiving the promises listed in Acts 2:38. The best that anyone has been able to do so far is to say that this was a special circumstance. Yet, this argument negates the meaning of Acts 2:38 as you have proposed it. If in fact, one does not have to obey both commands to receive the promises, why does Peter say that one must? The only consistent position is that this understanding of Acts 2:38 is not correct, which then means that Acts 2:38 and Acts 10 are in perfect harmony - along with Rom. 4, Gal. 2, Eph. 2:8-10, ect.... Well, I have to run now! I have enjoyed our discussion my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
12 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Teacher | 66906 | ||
And that is the way I took it, my friend, in good humor. In an attempt to justify your teaching you use one scripture in Acts 10 to explain away all other scripture dealing with the subject. Whoever said that Cornelius' conversion in Acts 10 is a "special circumstance" is correct for if you read the entire chapter and understand that Peter was "called" to go to Cornelius in order for God to show that salvation had come to Gentiles also, you will see that it all fits together in harmony. My exegesis is as follows: ch 10.1-8 Cornelius is described as a devout man who feared God, although a Gentile, praying to God always. An angel of the Lord appears to him and tells him to send men to Joppa to fetch Peter. Vs. 6, "He will tell you what you must do." Vs. 9-16 In Peter's vision he sees all manner of four footed beasts. A voice tells him, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." Peter says no because they are unclean. The voice replies, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." This was done three times. Vs. 17-23 The men who Cornelius sent arrive at Peter's, he agrees to go with them (as instructed by the Spirit, vs 19,20), and Peter takes "some brethren (Christian Jews) from Joppa" with him. Vs. 24-33 Peter arrives at the home of Cornelius. Vs. 28 Peter states the purpose of his visit, recalling his vision from God, and saying that he "should not call any man common or unclean". Cornelius tells Peter of his vision that caused him to send for Peter. Vs. 33 says, "we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God." Vs. 34-43 Peter begins his sermon to the household of Cornelius. As he was doing this (vs 44), the Holy Spirit "fell upon all those who heard the word" (vs 44). Vs. 45 "And those of the circumcision who believed (meaning Jewish Christians in today's terms) were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift had been poured out on the Gentiles also." Let me stop here to raise a couple of points. 1. Nowhere in Peter's sermon, that we know of, did he mention either repentance or baptism. 2. The Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and Co. even before repentance. Where in the scripture does it say that had repented or that they were even saved? Where in the bible does it say being baptized with the Holy Spirit saves us? This is an assumption made in error. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was evidenced by these "Gentiles" speaking in tongues and magnifying God. The bible does not teach that this evidence is evidence of salvation. The bible does teach, however, that we are cleansed through the blood of Christ (1 Jn 1.7) and that we come into contact with the blood of Christ, meaning his death, through baptism (Rom 6.3). 3. The purpose of all of this was to show that Gentiles are accepted by God as well as Jews. You must agree that the need for circumcision prior to salvation was a huge topic of debate in those days (dangerously similar to the need for baptism, the difference being circumcision is NOT taught as a requirement, baptism IS). If we regress back to vs. 15, "What God has cleansed you must not call common" and couple it with vs. 45, "And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift had been poured out on the Gentiles also" we can see that this example of conversion was to prove to Jews that Gentiles could obtain the same salvation as Jews. As is commanded elsewhere in the New Testament (Mt 28.19, Mk 16.16, Acts 2.38, 8.36, 16.15,33, 22.16) in Acts 10.48 Peter commands them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and this, in our Lord's own words, "is fitting to fulfill all righteousness (Mt 3.15). Jesus himself, although not necessary, was baptized because he had to fulfull all righteousness. So we also must in order to fulfill all righteousness. |
||||||
13 | Unforgivable sin | Romans | Morant61 | 66910 | ||
Greetings Teacher! Thanks for the response my friend! Actually, I have appealed to more than one Scripture: Gal. 2, Eph. 2: 8-10, Rom. 4, ect....! :-) However, the reason I focus on Acts 10 is because if your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is correct, then Acts 2:38 and Acts 10 are in direct contradiction. Your intepretation of Acts 2:38 says: to repent AND to be baptized result in forgiveness of sins and reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In this interpretation, both commands must be obeyed in order to acheive the two promised results. However, you then say that this is not true in Acts 10. You claim that there: They received the Gift of the Holy Spirit then They repented and were baptized and they then received forgiveness of sins. So, which is it? If one can recieve the 'gift of the Holy Spirit' without obeying either the command to repent or to be batized, can one also receive 'forgiveness of sins' without obeying either command? You see my friend, Acts 10 is a fatal flaw to this interpretation of Acts 2:38. You have to deny the express order of your understanding of Acts 2:38 in order to make Acts 10 fit your intepretative scheme. Now, let's suppose that I am correct in my understanding of Acts 2:38. The order would then be like this: Obedience to the command to repent results in forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit after which, each one is commanded to be baptized. Does this fit the context of Acts 10? Yes, it does. Those who heard the message of Peter repented. How do we know? How did Peter know? They had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, therefore, in accord with Acts 2:38, they must have repented and also received 'forgiveness of sins'. Because of these facts, Peter baptisms them as a result of their salvation. In this interpretation, Acts 2:38 and Acts 10 are in perfect harmony. One does not have to claim special circumstances, or change the meaning of Acts 2:38 to make them fit. This interpretation also is in harmony with all of the other passages which teach that one does not have to be baptized in order to be saved. 'Faith', 'belief', 'acceptance' (synonomous terms) are consistently said throughout Scripture to be the only 'requirement' for salvation. Consider all of the following verses my friend. If your position is true, then all of these verses are misleading and inaccurate, because more is required for salvation than is actually mentioned: 1) Acts 2:21 - "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.?" 2) Acts 16:30 - "He then brought them out and asked, ??Sirs, what must I do to be saved?? 31 They replied, ??Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved?you and your household.?" 3) Rom. 10:13 - "for, ??Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.?" 4) 2 Thess. 2:13 - " But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth." Simply put, Scripture consistently lays out only one requirment for slavation. One must accept, repent, call out, believe, what ever one wants to call this act. The act is simply one of acceptance. If accept the gift of salvation, we are saved. Further, our salvation is not dependent upon our continuing obedience, works, or anything else. It is entirely based upon what Christ did for us on the cross. This is why this topic is so important my friend. Ever since the beginning of the church, this very same debate has been going on. Someone is always trying to add something else that we must do in order to be saved. Yet, Scripture continually rejected any such notion. Go back and read everything Paul said about the Judaizers and the issue of circumscion. That debate is identical to this one. The Judaizers taught that it took both faith and obedience to the command to be circumscized in order to be saved. Paul rejected this notion firmly. The same arguments are being raised today over and over again. People are being taught that they most do this, or do that, or that they must be perfect and not sin in order to really be saved. We must reject this preaching of 'another gospel' as Paul called it in Galatians. This is why I spend so much time interacting with individuals on this forum about this issue. It seems to be very hard for many to accept that Christ really did do it all for us! :-( Well, my granddaughter needs my attention now, so I must go! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||