Results 1 - 20 of 37
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jelkins Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133713 | ||
Tim, continuing discussion about the Greek word, eis, how can I find BAG, the definitive lexicon of Greek words, which you reference? Searched Google for "Greek Lexicon" and got 153,000 hits. Thought I'd just ASK you instead of looking through them all. Don't like to admit I also searched for "BAG". The return on that was much too general, as you might expect. Have found other info about it. At the following link, article entitled "A Rose is a Rose" contains this statement: 5. Finally, Doctor Daniel B. Wallace has stated in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics that the “causal” use of eis in Acts 2:38 (i.e., “because of” instead of “in order to”) has been demonstrated to fail in terms of linguistic evidence (p. 370) – http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/homographFor.htm |
||||||
2 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133703 | ||
Thanks for your response, Tim. I will check more into what you say. In the meantime, for anyone interested, here is a link to The Bible Truths Online Greek Course, Lesson Seven titled the Definite Article and Prepositions. Sublinks to articles about Jesus' Diety, the ceasation of miracles, and the "for" in Acts 2:38. www.bibletruths.net choose "the Bible" "Study Course" "Site Map" "On-line Greek Course" "Lesson Seven" |
||||||
3 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133353 | ||
acknowledged. | ||||||
4 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133351 | ||
Regarding your Note II About the Greek word, EIS. The following information is from a friend and preacher of the gospel. The Greek word, eis, is a preposition indicating motion or direction; such as, to, into, toward, for, among. It is used about 1,500 times, and overwhelmingly, translators have not translated it “because of.” It would seem that if “because of” were an accepted definition, it could be substituted in any one of those places. If, in Acts 2:38, the ‘eis’ could mean “baptized ‘because of’ (instead of ‘for’) remission of sins,” then, it would follow that it must also mean “repent because of remission of sins,” because the verse says “repent and be baptized..,” and that doesn’t quite fit reasoning or logic. If the “because of” argument works for Acts 2:38, why not for Matt 26:28? Or, Romans 10:10, which say: Matt 26:28, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (because of?) the remission of sins.” Rom 10:10. “For with the heart man believeth unto (because of?) righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto (because of?) salvation.” Kalos, in Acts 2:38, you try to link forgiveness of sins to repentance by partitioning off in parentheses the words about baptism. I offer II Cor 7:10 which says “For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation,” showing that at the point of repentance, you haven’t got forgiveness of sins yet. I find it hard to believe that anyone can misunderstand Mark 16:16. The text speaks for itself. However, you make an effort to force it to conform to your interpretations about baptism. I have heard the proposition that Mark 16:9-20 may not be an authentic part of Mark’s writings, but the doctrine of Christ regarding baptism for remission of sins is not dependant on that text. I ask, why couldn’t 1 Peter 3:20-21 be saying, as Noah and family were saved by water, so are we also saved by water? Read it again. If my understanding about the Holy Spirit baptism is correct, as stated in previous notes on this forum, and it is most certainly plausible, then Rom 6 and Gal 3 are most certainly talking about water baptism. Again, in your comments about Paul’s conversion in Acts 22:16, I see you trying to fit this clear text about baptism into your mold. Let it speak for itself. You say, "Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation." I say, if as you say, baptism is “required of every believer,” then it must be the one baptism in Eph 4. I invite all to do a study of the 8-10 cases of conversion in Acts, keeping in mind the plan of salvation was given first in Acts 2:38. You decide if baptism is necessary for salvation. Suggest you leave the cases of conversion talked about in Matt – John on the other side of the cross. Kalos, I will say to you as I said to Tim. You are preaching two baptisms instead of one. Should I believe you, or God? |
||||||
5 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133350 | ||
Sorry to be slow Kalos. It took me a while to look up and study all the scripture references you gave. (I couldn’t find “IssuesandAnswers” on the Grace to You web site) You (and others) ask, “If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?” I say, if God inspired Luke to write that Peter said baptism was for remission of sins in the first recorded gospel sermon – the baseline, if you please (Acts 2:38), perhaps He didn’t see a need for Luke to keep on repeating it. The truth of it had already been established . Please tell me how you explain away the fact that the only time in scripture “faith alone” is alluded to, the text says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2). And, please give reasons James would have said, not once but three times, that “faith without works is dead.” My own interpretation is that the righteous works which God requires of his believers are different from “the works of the law” [of Moses]. Compare Eph 2:9 with Eph 2:10. You say, “Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations.” But, when Luke records Paul’s words about his own conversion, he said that baptism was to wash away his sins. Your explanation about Acts 22:16 doesn’t work for me. Much more logical to think the washing was done in the waters of “baptism” rather than in the “calling.” I think this verse is a good example of “calling on the name of the Lord” (doing something by His authority – as we might say, “STOP! In the name of the law!). You say, “Paul states that ‘Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,’ thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.” I ask, aren’t you comparing apples and oranges? There is nothing in this text that indicates that baptism for remission of sins is not a part of the gospel preached, only that Paul didn’t do much of the baptizing. The reason is given in 1 Cor 1:15, “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name,” and thus lend to the divisions among the brethren. In your Note 1, sixth paragraph, all the examples you give of Jesus forgiving sins happened before his death; before baptism into his death became a requirement for salvation. (Rom 6, Heb 9) There is nothing in the text of scripture that indicates the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for salvation of the Apostles or of Cornelius, et al. It was to furnish the power to usher in the Kingdom of God, to the Jew first, then to the Gentile. I agree wholehearted with these comments of yours: “One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. …Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.” However, I do not agree with your comment, “Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise.” I see the “general teaching” in Matt 28, establishing Christ’s authority and His command to be baptized, and in Acts 2:38, the first time God’s plan of salvation is presented by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles after the resurrection and ascension of Christ. All other interpretations must be in harmony with that. Not too difficult, if you are careful to weed out the “doctrines and commandments of men” that abound in the religious world today. |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | 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. |
||||||
8 | Created "in " Christ Jesus | Eph 2:10 | jelkins | 133032 | ||
Post 3 of 3. Tim, you say, “There is not a single verse that say the gifts would cease with the complete of the canon.” To that, I offer this: 1 Cor 13 “8Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” I’ve learned it is acceptable to substitute “complete” for “perfect.” Now, who among us is going to say that the written New Testament is NOT complete knowledge and prophecy? For convenient reference, I’ve pasted the text here from I Cor 12 which shows the 9 spiritual gifts: “7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same[2] Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.” |
||||||
9 | Created "in " Christ Jesus | Eph 2:10 | jelkins | 133031 | ||
Post 2 of 3. Regarding number 4 in post 1 of 3. Scripture teaches salvation comes by the Spirit but it also teaches salvation comes by the Word. Compare John 3:8 [“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit”] with I Peter 1:22-23 [“Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit … having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.”] Rom 1:16: “for it [the gospel – (the word)] is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.” More on how the HS regenerates us – directly, or through medium (the water and the word). John 3:5, “…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Again, John 3:8, “…So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” James 1:18, “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth…” Rom 1:16: “for it [the gospel – (the word)] is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.” Titus 3:5, “…He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit…” Eph 5:26, “…that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.” 1 Cor 3:16-17, Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. 1 Cor 6:19, Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? Again, from I Peter 1, “… having been born again…through the word of God” Col 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly…” Psalms119:11, “Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You.” 1 Thes 5:19, Quench not the Spirit. 1 John 5:8, And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. 1 Peter 3:21, “…baptism doth also now save us…” My conclusion from studying these verses and more is that the Spirit dwells in a Christian to the extent that he lets the word of God dwell in him. There is power in the Word. “…and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) For your consideration, I offer this quote: “There are two schools of thought: there are those who are of the persuasion that man is born again or begotten by the word of God, then there are those that are born again or begotten by the Spirit. I know of no way of harmonizing the two views but by attributing regeneration to the agency of the Spirit and the instrumentality of the truth.” (J. M. Pendleton, “Christian Doctrine.” Also the author of a Baptist Manual used by Baptist Churches.) |
||||||
10 | Created "in " Christ Jesus | Eph 2:10 | jelkins | 133030 | ||
Post 1 of 3. Tim, couldn’t find 1000 chars to cut. In fact, I added! Mostly scripture quotes, though, which I wanted to leave in for ready reference. So, will reply in three parts. I speak carefully, lest I be found to misrepresent God’s word. I know that, according to James 3:1, those who assume to be teachers are subject to a stricter judgment. Can’t say more about Cornelius than what I’ve already posted recently. Will just have to leave the Forum readers with Acts chapters 10 and 11 and related passages, and let them judge whether or not I’ve spoken the truth. You say, “there is not a single verse that limits the Holy Spirit (HS) to the Apostles.” Even though readers are probably tired of this, I will post these words a 3rd time: 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. Nowhere have I said the HS is just for the Apostles (as you keep insisting), but I have said the baptismal measure of the HS and its attendant power was for them. Acts 8:18 and Acts 19 show the gifts of the HS were passed to others through the laying on of the Apostles hands. “And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money.” “And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them.’ In the New Testament, I see four levels of work done through man by the HS. 1) Jesus had the HS without measure. After His baptism, the Spirit descended on Him (Matt 3:16) . Col 2:9 says, “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” (Acts 10:38) The four gospels are full of descriptions of the HS working through the Christ. 2) The Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), giving them remembrance of what Jesus had told them, guiding them into all truth, giving them power to preach the word, confirm the word with signs and wonders, establish the church, give spiritual gifts via laying on of their hands, and write scripture. Cornelius and household received the same manifestations of the Spirit, to show the Apostles that salvation was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, but how could Jesus’ promise to “bring to remembrance and to guide into all truth” have been for Cornelius? The Kingdom came with power to the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost. The Kingdom did not come again at the time of Cornelius conversion, but it was extended to Gentiles. (Here I go, talking about Cornelius again!) 3) Members of the 1st century church received miraculous gifts of the HS from the laying on of the Apostles hands. Not sure if everyone received a gift, but text does indicate that no one got all 9 of the gifts (1 Cor 12:7-11.) Reason for these gifts was to “confirm the word” and maintain the integrity of the early church. First Cor 13 says these gifts would go away. 4) All Christians, universally, receive the gift of the HS, promised in Acts 2:38-39, reiterated in Acts 5:32, which says, “…And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the HS whom God has given to those who obey Him.” (Oops. Looks like we have to believe and then obey before we get the Spirit.) |
||||||
11 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132753 | ||
My bad, Steve. Using “God-fearing” as an adjective for Gentiles results from an interpretation of mine based on the line of scripture, “keeps the righteous requirements of the law.” IMO any Gentile who would keep the righteous requirements of the law would do so because he feared God. And, the rhetorical question, “will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?” leads me to believe God counted the Gentile righteous, and don’t believe He would do that for one who did not fear Him. Now, please tell me if “for conscience' sake” is in the text, or is that your interpretation? Don’t you think Cornelius served God as he did “for conscience' sake?” More in a future post about the HS dwelling in Christians through the medium of the Word. J. Elkins |
||||||
12 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132657 | ||
Thanks for your comments AO. You make a couple of points that I had not picked up on. I know the scriptural qualifications for Overseer(Bishop)/Elder/Pastor, and I applaud your aspiration to such a high calling. I cheer you on toward your goal. |
||||||
13 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132655 | ||
Steve, I’m guessing we disagree on what’s in the package. I read that hearing and obeying the gospel is part of it. I don’t believe I ever pretended Cornelius and household were apostles. In other notes, I’ve pointed out that Acts 11 gives the reason the HS descended on them -- To show the Apostles that salvation was for the Gentiles, too. I’m convinced Cornelius and company did not receive the power and total inspiration that the Apostles received. Had that been the case, there would have been no need for Peter to continue preaching to them; they would have known as much about it as he did. And, for others than the Apostles to have received the same power from the HS would have watered down (compromised) the authority the Apostles had to unlock the mysteries of God’s purpose for mankind with the “keys of the Kingdom,” and to serve as the foundation of the church. These couple of verses in Romans 2, apply to God-fearing Gentiles like Cornelius. 14for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 26Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? An excellent case can be made from scripture that Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through the medium of the Word. I pray that our conversations may glorify God. J. Elkins |
||||||
14 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132654 | ||
Good words Armond888. But, aren't you missing the point that baptism was not a requirement under the Law of Moses (under which both Jesus and the thief lived); it became a requirement under the New Testament, after Jesus died. 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. |
||||||
15 | 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 |
||||||
16 | 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. |
||||||
17 | 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." |
||||||
18 | Created "in " Christ Jesus | Eph 2:10 | jelkins | 132074 | ||
Tim, hope you didn’t give up on me. It doesn’t make any difference what I think or what I feel – or what you think or feel. It does matter what the text says. I read in Acts 19 that believers did not have the Holy Spirit (HS) until they were baptized in the name of Jesus. They received the Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them. I read in Acts 2:38 that the Holy Spirit was promised after baptism. I read in verses where baptism and salvation are both mentioned that salvation comes after baptism; e.g., “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mk 16:16)”; “be baptized…for remission of sins” (Acts 2:38); “be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22); “…because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts…” (Gal 4:6) – and I paraphrase, after being born again (of the water and the spirit) you get the Spirit. You misquote me. I didn’t say “the HS is just for the Apostles.” All Christians have the HS through the written Word, which is full of power. (Rom 1:16, Heb 4:12) I restate that the promise of the Comforter/Counselor and the “power from on high” was only for the Apostles. Even the occurrence at Cornelius household was for benefit of the Apostles, to show them that Gentiles had received “repentance to life.” Acts 11:18. [Jesus’ promise that the Comforter would bring to mind everything he had said and would guide into all truth was not to Cornelius’ household.] The baptismal measure of the HS enabled the Apostles (1) to establish the church (as prophesied, to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles); (2) to confirm with miracles that their words were from God; (3) to maintain the integrity of the church by giving to the early Christians via laying on of their hands 9 miraculous gifts of the HS (1 Cor 12; Acts 8; Acts 19) (nobody got all 9 of the gifts) -- there is no indication anyone else had the power to pass the gifts on -- Stephen had to call the Apostles to do it (Acts 8); and (4) then to write the Bible through inspiration [the perfect (complete) knowledge and prophecy of 1 Cor 13]. The Apostles died. The miraculous abilities went away. Today, we have the HS through the inspired written Word. Paul says to Timothy in II Tim 3:16-17 that the scripture is all we need. He said he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). 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. John 13 - 17 is tells of Jesus’ interaction with 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 charged with using scripture to make judgments about those today who claim to be Apostles, who claim to have received the baptism of the HS, who claim to have miraculous gifts of the HS, and who claim that God speaks to them personally. I read the qualifications for being an Apostle, one of which is to have been with Jesus from the beginning. I know HS baptism was a promise, to whom it was given, and what its manifestations were -- that it was not a command to obey. I don’t see anyone being raised from the dead. I know Paul told the Ephesians, “there is one baptism” – those who deny it is water baptism may be “wresting the scriptures to their own destruction.” And, as I read recently on this forum, Scripture tells us we must live by “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” and I cannot know the words He “spoke” to someone else. Since God is no respecter of persons, I deny that he speaks to anyone other than through the written Word (Heb 1:1). Concerning your last statement, Tim. The text of Acts 10 does not say what you say, that “they were saved first, then baptized as a result of their salvation – not as a condition of their salvation.” Sincere students of the Word can read in Acts 10 and 11 that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter spoke, they can read the words he spoke to command water baptism, and they can make an educated guess that his words did not include reference to HS baptism because its occurrence astonished him. There are many scriptures I know that indicate we are to obey God by being baptized in water as a condition of our salvation. There is no reason for me not to believe it was also a condition for Cornelius salvation. I truly do consider the points you make from the scripture, and I see more and more how you support the doctrine you teach, but I’ve not seen any text that cannot be interpreted to agree with the pattern I’ve shown here. Thanks to all who take time to read. May God’s word fall the honest and good hearts (Luke 8:15) J. Elkins |
||||||
19 | Created "in " Christ Jesus | Eph 2:10 | jelkins | 132073 | ||
Your quote is of Jesus’ words to the Apostles. In John chapters 13 through 17, John recorded what Jesus told the chosen 12 during the Passover meal they shared together, commonly known as the “last supper.” The text in Acts 10 does not say Cornelius, et al, were saved prior to water baptism. I have addressed the points mentioned in your postscript. Will post it next. |
||||||
20 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |