Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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. |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||