Results 1 - 18 of 18
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 129797 | ||
How do you regard the salvation of the thief on the cross, who was not baptized? The thief on the cross lived under the Law of Moses, as did Jesus. At the time of the crucifixion, the kingdom had not come, the church had not been established, the New Covenant wasn’t effective. At that time Jesus had not given the command to be baptized. As evidenced in Matt 9, Jesus had the power while he was alive to forgive sins and, by inference, to give entrance to Paradise to the thief – through his word alone. After his death and resurrection, he still has the power, again through his word, but bound by the pattern/form/requirements of His last will and testament, the New Covenant. (Following text copied from BibleGateway.com, NKJ V.) Topic of discussion as found in Luke. Luke 23:39Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." 40But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." 42Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." 43And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." Command to be baptized into Christ’s death for remission of sins came later, after Jesus’ death, before his ascension.. (See Mark 16, also) Mat 28 18And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore[3] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Only after Christ’s death was the new law binding. Heb 9 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Jesus’ mode of operation while he was alive. Matt 9 5For which is easier, to say, "Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, "Arise and walk'? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house." I was well into adulthood when someone pointed these things out to me with loving persistence, even though I was a reluctant listener. I’m grateful they cared enough. To know when the church was established (Acts 2) has made all the difference in the world in understanding scripture. May God bless the reading of His Word. J. Elkins |
||||||
2 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 130875 | ||
I’m slow in saying thanks for all the input to my note about the salvation of the thief on the cross. I’ve read and pondered your comments and the scriptures you referenced. Acknowledging that the basic topic here is whether or not baptism has been necessary for salvation since the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, I speak in humility and love (Eph 4:15, reference Jude 3, I Pet 4:11) All preconceptions, prejudices, guesswork, and speculation aside, my Bible still says salvation is in Christ, and that we are baptized into Christ, and that baptism saves us, and that baptism washes away sins, and that he who believes and is baptized will be saved, that obedience is key, that the devils also believe and tremble, and so forth. (II Tim 2:10, Rom 6:3 and Gal 3:27, I Pet 3:21, Acts 22:6, Mark 16:16, I Pet 1:22, Jas 2.). Maybe you can see why I feel the teaching that we are saved by faith alone without baptism, and thus outside of Christ, has a bit of a disconnect. God has always required obedience, both in the old and new testaments. Quoting from Heb 5:9 “…He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him…” There is nothing in the waters of baptism that saves except an obedient sinner. The requirement of baptism for remission of sins hardly makes the new Law of Liberty more stringent and difficult than the old law of Moses. And, while we’re talking difficult, I remember that Jesus said “narrow is the gate and difficult is the way…” so, shouldn’t we expect some amount of difficulty? I read recently on the Forum a reference to the story of Nahum. His leprosy wasn’t cured until he had done what God told him to do, dip 7 times in the Jordan River. Maybe not logical and reasonable according to man’s (Nahum’s) thinking, but certainly not more difficult than he was able to do You are defending your position (and I have no quarrel with the thief being saved through faith and confession while Jesus was alive), but you aren’t telling me specifically what part of my reasoning is false. Which of the scriptures I have referenced are not true? What part of my note is not based solely on scripture? J. Elkins |
||||||
3 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 130877 | ||
Greetins J. Elkins! I have posted on this topic many times. So many in fact, that I am beginning to believe that grace will never be understood by too many today. So, rather than spend all the time and effort yet again, I will simply repost so older comments of mine. I don't hold out much hope that you will accept them, but I do hope that there are some who will read them and not be lured into this 'other gospel'. ************************************* 1) Where does the Bible teach why we should be baptized? I would say that there are three primary passages. a) Mt. 28:19-20: There is one command in this passage, "make disciples". Every other verb is a participle which describes the process of making a disciple: while going, baptizing, and teaching. Based on this, I would say that baptism is an initiation rite into the church. b) 1 Pet. 3:21: This passage says that baptism is "the pledge of a good conscience toward God". We should be baptized because God commanded it. c) Rom. 6:1-4: Here Paul lays out the case that baptism symbolically identifies us with the death, burial, and resurrection. The problem I have with putting too much emphasis upon baptism is that it puts too much emphasis on one phrase in one verse, which may even be misunderstood (as I posted previously). If one assumes that baptism is necessary to salvation, then how does one answer the following questions? 1) Why does Jesus say so little about baptism? In all of the Gospels accounts, Jesus only mentions baptism a handful of times. Usually, He is refering to John's baptism. Sometimes, He is refering to His death. Only a couple of times, does He refer to baptism as we know. And, He never baptized anyone. 2) How could the thief on the cross be saved, since he wasn't baptized? Jesus clearly indicated that he was saved. The only way around this would be to deny that he was saved or to say that Jesus made an exception. 3) Why was Paul thankful that he didn't baptize? 1 Cor. 1:13-17 makes the point that Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. If baptism is necessary to salvation, why wouldn't he baptize? Wouldn't baptism be an important part of the gospel? 4) If Acts 2:38 indicates that baptism is necessary for salvation, why does Acts 3:19 not include baptism in it's command? 5) If baptism is essential to salvation, why does Acts 10:47 indicate that those who were already saved and filled with the Holy Spirit should then be baptized? I appreciate your responses, questions, and attitude. My opinion on this is simple. Baptism is important, since it is commanded by Christ Himself. However, it is not essential to salvation. Many, like the thief and those in Acts 10, were clearly saved without being baptized. Jesus did not focus on it much, nor did He baptize anyone. Paul said that he was not sent to baptize and did not baptize many. Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone, not works. So, on the whole, I would have to say that there is a strong case that baptism is not essential to salvation. ************************************* Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 130889 | ||
Tim, I also appreciate your sincerity, and your apparent love of the Lord and his Word. I believe, whole-heartedly, in the grace of God, which is that he gave his Son to die for us while we were yet sinners. Grace has been called "unmerited favor." I believe that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, as in: "without faith it is impossible to please him." I expect our differences go back to the issue of whether or not mankind is born totally depraved. Maybe you believe man sins because he is born a sinner, and I believe man is a sinner because he sins (looking at Ezekiel 18). I deny that what I have posted should be called "this 'other gospel'" It is curious, but I, too, hope that some will see the truth in the scriptures I have used and come to the same conclusions I present. Assuming you believe Paul's words to Timothy, "all scripture is given by inspiration," why is it that your position appears to deny the truth of the following three paragraphs, which I copied from one of my earlier posts. All spiritual blessings are “in Christ” (Eph 1:3). Salvation is a spiritual blessing. Salvation is “in Christ” (II Timothy 2:10). This is supported by Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, and II Timothy 3:15 (“In Him” we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins). So, “how do we get into Christ?” The question is answered by scripture in at least two places – Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27: We are baptized into Christ. Paul said to the Ephesians, “there is one baptism.” I ask you, is it the baptism you believe is done after one is saved, or the baptism I believe saves by putting one into Christ – where salvation is? You say "Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone, not works." And, I call attention to Eph 2:8-10, with emphasis on verse 10, and James chapter 2. Since I like to give scripture to support my answers, I can't address your several questions off the top of my head, Tim. I will say that my next post will be about the Spirit-baptism of Cornelius from Acts 10. May God bless our studies together. J. Elkins |
||||||
5 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 130907 | ||
Greetings J. Elkins! Thanks for the response my friend! Concerning depravity, Ps. 51 and Romans 5 both make it clear that we are born sinners. I too believe that we are baptized into Christ, but this is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, not by water. Cornelius is an excellent example of this point. Cornelius, and those with him, were saved and Spirit filled, and then they were baptized in water. So, it is clear that water baptism is not necessary for salvation. I have had this discussion enough to know that your response will probably be that Cornelius was a special circumstance, but Scripture never makes this claim. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132072 | ||
Tim, it may be clear to you that water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but not to me. (You haven’t said which is the “one” baptism in Ephesians 4.) I believe salvation is accomplished by the HS, but at the time of water baptism. I’ve posted before, there’s nothing in the water that saves except an obedient believer. I expect you will agree, the text of Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism. And, Acts 11:17-18 substantiates that the conversion of Corneluis was, indeed, a special circumstance. That Peter even went into the house of a Gentile was pretty special. The text gives reasons for that baptism of the HS. Salvation is not one of them. Other texts put salvation at the point one is buried with Christ in [water] baptism. [See more in my separate posts about the conversion of Cornelius.] For the reasons following I disagree with you concerning whether or not men are totally depraved at birth. (You say, all men are born sinners.) The scriptures you use seem to support your interpretation (Psalm 51, Romans 5, and others I’m sure, such as Romans 7:21-23), but I have to reconcile them with the following clear teachings from God’s word. Taken as a whole, scripture calls for a conclusion that men become sinners when they sin; they are not born sinners. What little I know about the marked difference in Western thought and Easter thought has been a great aid to understanding scripture, and I hope to learn more about that. The latter is more figurative. Psalm 51:5 is literally translated, “Behold in iniquity I was born and in sin my mother conceived me,” which can lend to the idea that David was born into an evil and sinful world. Indeed, all of us are, and cannot escape succumbing to the temptations Satan puts in our way. As it is written, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23) The Word does teach that man becomes depraved and lost because of the sin he commits/practices, and he can do nothing on his own to reconcile himself to God. And, it follows that man is saved by God’s grace alone, as you say. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that man has a part to play in the plan of salvation. When he believes, he must obey. Check it out, my friends. Salvation IS conditional. It was for the Jews; it is for us. God has always required obedience. As an added consideration, I call to attention that the term “reconciliation” assumes there has been a “conciliation” Looking at the words in Genesis 8:21 “…although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth…”, I ask: isn’t this saying a man’s heart is not evil before he becomes a youth? And, Ezekiel 18:20 says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” This text speaks for itself. Looking at Romans 9:11, “….children not having done any good or evil.” Seems pretty self-explanatory. Matt 19:14. “But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” It stretches my imagination to think Jesus would say that, if the children were totally depraved. I believe the children were (are) pure and sinless, as Christians become, through the blood of Christ, when they enter the Kingdom. (Col 1:13). All said, Luke 8:15 is really the only verse I need to tell me that man is not born totally depraved and is able to personally respond to God’s word in a righteous way. There are good and honest hearts for the word of God to be planted in. The text: “But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble [honest] and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.” Thanks for discussing our differences with me, Tim. I expect we have others besides these two, but studying together is a step in the right direction. Both of us know about Paul’s admonition that there be no divisions among us, that we should think the same thing and speak the same thing. I also guess we both know that would happen only if we stick strictly to the text – nothing added – nothing deleted – no doctrines and commandments of men. Striving to please Him. J. Elkins |
||||||
7 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 132078 | ||
Hello J Elkins, You wrote: "I expect you will agree, the text of Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism." I don't know how you could possibly say this. Acts 10:1-2 is a clear indication he was a believer before Peter got there. Steve |
||||||
8 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132079 | ||
Steve, what I hear you saying is that you think Cornelius was saved because of his belief, and before Peter got there. And if you are saying that, you are saying he was saved even before he received the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't quite plumb with the fact that Peter was to tell him words whereby he might be saved. I stand by my statement: "Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism." |
||||||
9 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 132140 | ||
Hello J Elkins, Peter did not tell him words whereby he might be saved. Nowhere in Acts 10/11 does one see that Cornelius believed after listening to Peter. What it says is that the Holy Spirit descended on them as He did at Pentecost. On whom did the Holy Spirit descend at Pentecost? Believers. Steve |
||||||
10 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132212 | ||
Scripture says in Acts 11:13-14 “..and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” You say, “Peter did not tell him words whereby he might be saved.” I’ll leave it to the Forum readers to make judgment about this. Regarding your question, “On whom did the Holy Spirit descend at Pentecost?” You answer “Believers”; I answer “Apostles.” Following is information I posted yesterday supporting why I answered Apostles. In Acts 1:15, the text says there were about 120 disciples in the upper room. In Acts 2, the text does not say all 120 received the baptism of the HS. Tracking the antecedent of the pronouns in Acts 2:1-4 leads to Acts 1:26. The pronouns “them” and “they” refer to Matthias and the eleven, and can be traced even further back to the 11 in Luke 24:49. In John 14, Jesus promises the baptism of the HS to the Apostles at their Passover Feast. To say the baptism of the HS was for all is to read into scripture something that is not there. I am not saying the Holy Spirit is not for all Christians; only that the baptismal measure of the HS is not for everyone. |
||||||
11 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 132215 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! Concerning Acts 2:1-4, there simply isn't any way to grammatically 'prove' that 'they' and 'them' only refer to the disciples. But, there isn't anyway to prove that they don't either. However, I believe that the context makes a strong case for the inclusion of all in the room. Note Peter's use of the prophecy from Joel. Acts 2:16 - "No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 ”‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy." It would be odd to say the least that Peter would quote a reference to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on 'all' people in support of only the Disciples receiving the Holy Spirit baptism. :-) What is not in dispute though, and you have not addressed it as of yet, is that Acts 2:38-39 clearly says that the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is for 'you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.' This certainly doesn't indicate that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the disciples. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
12 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132235 | ||
You are TOO quick, Tim! I think I followed the rules of grammar perfectly to plead my case of "the Pronouns applying to the Apostles." I don't have a problem with Joel's prophecy. Don't you think the Holy Spirit has been poured out on the whole world through the Apostles preaching and laying on of their hands? I have spent some time this afternoon preparing a doc addressing Acts 2:38. Alas, it is 6,015 characters, and I must cut it by more that 1000 chars before I post it! Have to stop and do other things right now. (I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you go to Bible Studies on Wednesday evenings, too) Talk later. J. Elkins |
||||||
13 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 132246 | ||
Greetings J. Elkins! You may have followed English rules perfectly, but Greek handles pronoun agreement a little differently. Greek does not use the same sort of word order that we require in English. Therefore, the 'nearness' of a pronoun to a noun is not the determining factor in deciding if a pronoun is in fact the antecedent of a particular noun. In Greek, the form of the words is the determining factor. A pronoun must agree with it's antecedent in both gender and number. In this case, the 'all' of Acts 2:4 is plural in number and masculine in gender. Therefore, it could be refering to either the disciple of 1:26 or to the 120 brothers of 1:15. That is why I said that a case could be made either way. As far as Joel is concerned, I don't believe that the Apostle's preaching or laying on of hands has anything to do with the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. I believe, in accord with Acts 2:38, that everyone who believes will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - whether or not an Apostle is there at all. :-) p.s. - Before you ask about baptism in Acts 2:38, I have posted many times on this verse that the Greek indicates that the statement about baptism is an apositional phrase and is not required to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - as is also evidenced by Cornelius. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
14 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133052 | ||
Because of my very limited knowledge of Greek, I cannot confirm or deny your comments about the language. However, it seems logical that, for scripture in its translated form – in this case English, the English grammar rules should apply, and I would expect a Spanish version to follow Spanish grammar rules. Surely, the translators would have considered and compensated for the difference in grammar rules between the two languages. In any case, setting my argument for pronoun usage aside, I would still believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for only the Apostles because it was promised to them in John, they were told to wait for it in Luke, and in Acts 2:14, Peter stood up with the eleven; then said these are not drunk; then said, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel. (Should we also have some question whether or not “these” in Acts 2:15 applies to the eleven?) Miriam-Webster says: “Apposition, noun, 1 a : a grammatical construction in which two usually adjacent nouns having the same referent stand in the same syntactical relation to the rest of a sentence.” But, you’re not saying about Acts 2:38 that “repent” and “be baptized” have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the sentence. IMO, what you do say doesn’t quite have the ring of truth to it. If repentance is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, so is baptism. |
||||||
15 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 133063 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! You can check the Greek in any legitimate Greek grammar. :-) You wrote: "If repentance is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, so is baptism." Yet, Acts 10:45 conclusively disproves this statement! :-) p.s. - Thanks for the correction! I did use the wrong term. Instead of 'appositional', I should have used 'parenthetical'. :-) You will have to excuse me my friend. I am not as young as I once was! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
16 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133266 | ||
I make mistakes, too, and usually plead early onset of senility. Don't you wonder, if you are supposed to have been baptised with the Holy Spirit and have the same gift the Apostles and Cornelius had, why the HS would let you say anything that is in error? I expect it's time for me to find a legitimate Greek grammar and learn how to use it. I have been depending on a learned friend of mine to help me out in this area. You've talked me down, Tim. Practically everything I've said you've called "speculation," in spite of the fact that I gave you scripture to support all I said. At this point, I could only start repeating the things I've said in recent postings. I'll just ask our readers to refer to my notes under main topics "Why was the thief saved without baptism," 8/21/04, and "Created 'in' Christ," tms57mi, 6/16/03. Maybe I will think of something to say later that might persuade you to revisit my position that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles. As I see it, you are teaching two baptisms instead of one, provided you do teach that water baptism is a command of our Lord that must be obeyed. :-) With sincere concern for those who could find themselves on the wrong end of II John 9. J. Elkins |
||||||
17 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 133267 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! I just had a birthday, so I might start claiming senility! :-) Concerning speculation my friend, I just have a very high standard for what I will accept as Scripture. If you could show me a Scripture that actually says that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles then I would believe you. Until then, it is just speculation to claim something based only upon inferences. :-) I would be glad to pick the topic up later if you wish! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
18 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133353 | ||
acknowledged. | ||||||