Results 181 - 200 of 232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Grace and Truth Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50585 | ||
"I believed God, and it was credited to me as righteousness. That was shown forth in my baptism and my repentance, just as Abraham's belief was demonstrated in his obedience. But faith and obedient works, while always linked, must never be confused with one another". You bring up a good point here, when you said what God has done, (you the word "credited") and ("obedience") God will credit us before or after we obey him? This is exactly what Paul is teaching about faith! Faith itself is an active verb, it demands a responce, in Gen 12 when God told Abram to Go! Did he just sit there saying I believe you God, or did he pack-up and go? Remember active verb "repent and be baptized" faith with action is what God requires. Yes you can say "Faith alone" as long as you understand that faith is active and not stagnant Romans 4:20-25 Remember the throught here is base on the teaching in chapter 3 of Romans about what the law couldn't do Romans 3:28-31, also Paul spoke on this issue because it excluded the gentiles from Christ by the teachings of the jews. vs.29 |
||||||
182 | Should women be allowed to preach? | Galatians | Grace and Truth | 50582 | ||
I agree that a woman can teach someone God's word, but not in a congregational setting where men are, this is what Paul is saying, women can teach children, women and as did Priscilla with her husband. But to be a Pastor or Elder, deacon in the Lord's church is not and will never be scriptural! 1Tim 3:1-13 gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons, and we know bishops and pastors and elders are one and the same, and have always been and still need to be men in this office, Acts 20:17; Phil 1:1 and many places in the new testament. Believe me I know women are just as important as men in the church, I didn't set the rules God did, and we need to follow them. In Acts 6:1-6 is something very interesting where the church had a problem with the Grecians and Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. vs.3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. vs. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: Here a chance to choose leaders in the Lord's work to help widows, and the multitude chose men to lead the work not women. Why? Were there any women there? I'm sure they were. But the Lord would have the men to step up and lead the work, and that how it should be today. When men want to have it their way, they change the word to God to fit their desires! |
||||||
183 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50482 | ||
First of all, let us focus again on the motive behind this argument. Here is the difficulty for Mr. Slick and others of his theological persuasion. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well. Since protestants have already determined in their minds that baptism cannot be a requisite for salvation but that repentance is essential, this passage obviously “troubles” them. Their challenge, therefore, is this: How may one divorce the obligation to “repent” from the command “be baptized” in this passage? The above-stated grammatical contortion, based upon the differing verbal “numbers,” is their solution. However, the argument is futile. It is a fundamental form of grammatical construction that a group may be addressed with a general command; and then, as a matter of emphasis, a second injunction may be issued to each individual within the group — both commands being equally obligatory. |
||||||
184 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50480 | ||
The point in Luke 7:29-30 is the rejection of the counsel of God. Matt 28:19 is the great commission and that's about saving the world with the gospel. John 3;3-5 is about a new life in Christ being born again, getting into Christ-baptized into him! | ||||||
185 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50475 | ||
Mr. Slick was used in the article, no refernce to you. | ||||||
186 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50473 | ||
I have before me at this moment a copy of the Church Manual Designed For The Use Of Baptist Churches, by J.M. Pendleton (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1955). In a segment which addresses the “subjects” who are appropriate candidates for baptism, Pendleton was attempting to explain why baptism may not be administered in the case of infants. In a consideration of Acts 2:38, he wrote: The gospel was preached, the people were pierced to the heart, and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you.” No man will say that the command “Repent,” is applicable to infants, and it is certain the same persons [emp. added here] were called on to repent and be baptized (p. 84). Pendleton’s concession completely devastates the argument of his Baptist colleagues. But consider this additional statement from Mr. Slick, the director of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry: Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. A couple of observations must be made regarding this statement: 1. Repentance is a “gift” from God only in the sense that the Lord grants man the opportunity to repent (cf. Acts 11:18). That the sinner has the obligation to personally do the repenting is evidenced by the fact that he is commanded to discharge the responsibility (Acts 2:38; 3:19). 2. There is no biblical evidence whatever that “regeneration” is effected at the point of repentance. That is Mr. Slick’s unwarranted assertion. In the text under consideration, “forgiveness of sins” follows both repentance and immersion; it does not precede either of these commands. The gentleman is simply wrong about this matter. Our friend’s desire to defend the integrity of the Scriptures in various areas of apologetics is commendable. However, his egregious perversion of the divine plan of salvation undermines an otherwise noble effort. We can only hope he will restudy his position on the plan of redemption. |
||||||
187 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50470 | ||
Since protestants have already determined in their minds that baptism cannot be a requisite for salvation but that repentance is essential, this passage obviously “troubles” them. Their challenge, therefore, is this: How may one divorce the obligation to “repent” from the command “be baptized” in this passage? The above-stated grammatical contortion, based upon the differing verbal “numbers,” is their solution. However, the argument is futile. It is a fundamental form of grammatical construction that a group may be addressed with a general command; and then, as a matter of emphasis, a second injunction may be issued to each individual within the group — both commands being equally obligatory. Here is an example of this construction we hear frequently: “All who are departing for San Francisco, approach Gate 3; each of you must have his ticket available for the agent.” Let me follow up on this in a couple of ways. Several years ago I wrote a letter to F.W. Gingrich, co-translator, along with William Arndt, of the highly-respected Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957). This is the most authoritative Greek lexicon extant in the English language. The letter, dated February 12, 1968, inquired as follows: Dear Professor Gingrich: Is it grammatically possible that the phrase “for the remission of sins,” in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, “repent ye” and “be baptized each one of you,” even though these verbs differ in both person and number? From Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania (February 21, 1968), Gingrich replied: Yes. The difference between metanoesate [repent] and baptistheto [be baptized] is simply that in the first instance, the people are viewed together in the plural, while in the second the emphasis is on each individual. No credence can be given to the sort of argument made by Mr. Slick. But, as indicated above, some religionists — particularly our Baptist neighbors — have argued this position for years. In reality, though, they’ve been notoriously inconsistent. |
||||||
188 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50467 | ||
Our attention will be confined to his discussion of Acts 2:38. He begins by quoting the passage: Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Our friend then muses: “This verse is a tough one.” It’s not so “tough” — unless one already has his mind abused with the notion that baptism cannot be a condition in the plan of redemption. The gentleman continues: “It seems to say that baptism is a part of salvation.” It doesn’t “seem” to say it; it actually says it. He opines that this cannot be the case, though, for such a conclusion would contradict other scriptures. Our friend then seeks to employ a rather time-worn evasion in defense of his position — although his version of it may suggest that he really does not understand the nature of the original argument. Mr. Slick attempts to sever the connection between the verbs “repent” and “be baptized” (even though they are connected by the coordinate “and”) on the ground that the former term is plural in number, while the latter is singular.According to him the sense would seem to be: “Repent [plural] for the forgiveness of your [plural] sins, and [separate from the foregoing] each of you [singular] get baptized [as a now-saved person].” The gentleman appears to think that simply because there is a change in grammatical number, this somehow has disassociated baptism from repentance, and therefore distanced it from the phrase, “for the forgiveness of sins.” This is a debate quibble hoary with age. It was ineffectively employed by Ben N. Bogard in his discussion with N.B. Hardeman more than sixty years ago. The eloquent Hardeman demolished the argument! First of all, let us focus again on the motive behind this argument. Here is the difficulty for Mr. Slick and others of his theological persuasion. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well. |
||||||
189 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50466 | ||
Remember I didn't write the book of Acts, Luke did. The word 'and' connect the two actions together, hence both must be obeyed! The phrase “for the remission of sins” translates the Greek eis aphesin ton hamartion. The preposition eis points to a goal that is as yet unreached. Never, in any reputable translation, is this expression rendered “because of the remission of sins.” Compare, for instance, the use of the phrase in Matthew 26:28. In that text, Jesus declared: "For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for [eis] the remission of sins.” Now here is an appropriate question: Does it matter whether or not one believes that the Lord shed his blood “to obtain” remission of sins, or if he died “because of” pardon already effected? Is what one believes regarding the efficacious nature of Christ’s death important? How can one possibly hold the view point that opposite constructions are equally valid? Such is a wholly illogical position. How can one conscientiously ignore inspired grammatical forms that were designed to convey precise religious ideas? Unfortunately, this is the extreme to which some appear to be driven in their irresponsible attempts to extend Christian fellowship across the borders of modern denominationalism. Underline the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38, and in your margin make this notation: See Matthew 26:28 — same purpose phrase. |
||||||
190 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50461 | ||
Remember I didn't write the book of Acts, Luke did. The word 'and' connect the two actions together, hence both must be obeyed! | ||||||
191 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50454 | ||
No one said that BAPTISM ALONE SAVES, it's through faith one is to be baptized, Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16. | ||||||
192 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50452 | ||
Those who don’t believe are condemned “You frequently cite Mark 16:16, in which Jesus states that ‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . . .’ However, the second clause in that sentence, ‘but he that believeth not shall be damned’ states unequivocally that belief (faith) is the key element to salvation.” 1. While faith may be described as “a key element,” in the salvation process, because it is the motive out of which additional acts of obedience arise, it is not correct to suggest that it is the only element in salvation. Again we stress, such reasoning would exclude repentance. May one be saved without sorrow for sin and a corresponding reformation of life? Surely our friend will not so contend. 2. When Christ affirmed that one who disbelieves will be condemned, it was entirely unnecessary to add further acts of rebellion in order to make the case. The unbeliever is condemned at that point. It is superfluous to extrapolate the disobedience. Suppose we say: “He who eats and digests his food shall live, but he who eats not shall die.” Would it be sensible to say: “He who eats and digests his food shall live, but he who eats not, and does not digest, shall die.”? Can one digest what he does not eat? Is it even necessary to discuss baptism with one who is in a state of disbelief? 1. The plain truth of the matter is this: Jesus “unequivocally” stated that “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” The terms “believes” and “is baptized” are, in the Greek Testament, compound participles in the aorist tense. In Greek grammar this reflects a format which indicates an action that takes place prior to that of the leading verb (Machen, 116-117), which, in this case, is “shall be saved.” This means that both actions occur before that suggested by the verb. In other words, salvation does not occur until the believer has been baptized. This is as plain as language can be. 2. J.W. Willmarth, a noted Baptist editor and writer, once conceded: “. . . our Saviour said, just before he ascended the heavens: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. We shall hardly dare to tamper with his royal word and make it run, He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized (306). |
||||||
193 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50450 | ||
"Between the two lines of evidence, it is very clear that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is something which those who have already been saved are commanded to do". So, if you believe your use of the greek, meanings of the text is correct, look again! 'eis' is used in Mt.26:28 that Jesus shed his blood because of the remission of sins, and not for the remission of sins. 1. While it is true that the passages referenced (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 3:22-27) do not explicitly mention baptism, neither do they contain any allusion to repentance. Are we to assume that repentance is not required for redemption? Surely not. 2. It is rarely the case that a single context will totally exhaust the biblical material on a particular theme. It is the “sum” of the truth that counts (Psa. 119:160), not an isolated text, that may focus upon a limited point of emphasis. Acts 2:38 contends for repentance and baptism as “requisites” for “forgiveness,” with no specific mention of faith. However, by means of that interpretive rule known as “analogy of faith,” belief in the Lord must be implied as well. In his famous work, Biblical Hermeneutics, M.S. Terry defined the concept of “analogy of faith.” This principle “assumes that the Bible is a self-interpreting book, and what is obscure in one passage may be illuminated by another. No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages” (449). For example, the fact that God is said to be “one” (Dt. 6:4) does not negate the biblical truth so abundantly affirmed elsewhere that God, i.e., the nature of deity, is possessed by three Personalities – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Mt. 28:19-20). A truth emphasized in one passage may be enlarged by additional information in other texts. This is a most fundamental principle of interpretation. |
||||||
194 | CAN JESUS DICTATE THE TERMS OF SALVATION | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50443 | ||
Be real! What he did there was to prepare the people for his death! Also in his ministry he said his time has not yet come! | ||||||
195 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50441 | ||
Disobedience doesn’t condemn In conclusion our critic says this: “I suggest that the believer is indeed being disobedient if,when he does not get baptized. But to suggest that not getting baptized is a sin unto damnation, as you do, is troubling doctrine, not to mention unscriptural.” 1. Note the logic in our friend’s conclusion. One who refuses to be baptized is disobedient. But refusing to submit to baptism is not a damning act. Thus, one is forced to conclude that disobedience is not a damning activity. How very opposite to the affirmation of an inspired writer who affirmed that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey (Heb. 5:9). Is there a solitary line in the New Testament that promises salvation to the disobedient? 2. We must again press this point. Those who refused John’s baptism (cf. Mk. 1:4), “rejected the counsel of God” (Lk. 7:30). “Counsel” denotes “the purpose of God respecting salvation” (Thayer, 104). May one repudiate God’s saving plan, and still be saved? If such a judgment hung over those who rejected John’s baptism, what of those who reject the baptism commissioned by Jesus (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16)? 3. Those who submitted to John’s baptism, “justified God” (Lk. 7:29), “declared God to be righteous, i.e., by receiving the baptism declared that it had been prescribed by God rightly” (Thayer, 150). If accepting baptism “justifies” God, would not rejecting baptism “condemn” God? Is it possible that one can so act as to “condemn” God, and yet not be held responsible for that rebellion? We would respectfully suggest, therefore, that our corespondent’s position, namely that one may be disobedient and reject baptism, and yet still please God and receive salvation, is the dogma that is both “troubling” and “unscriptural.” It is our devout hope that he will reconsider his point of view. SOURCES Arndt, William and Gingrich, F.W. (1967), A Greek,English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago). Hovey, Alvah (1885), Commentary on the Gospel of John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society). Machen, J. Gresham (1951), New Testament Greek For Beginners (New York: Macmillan). Terry, M.S. (1890), Biblical Hermenuetics (New York: Eaton and Mains). Thayer, J.H. (1958), A Greek,English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T.,T. Clark). Vine, W.E. (1991), Vine’s Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers). Willmarth, J.W. (1877), “Baptism and Remission,” Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July. Comment on this article. www.christiancourier.com,images,juniorAd.gif WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING “I was searching on the internet and started hitting different sites to see how much truth I could find. Thanks for your site. Keep putting the truth out there for others to find.” “You have a great Web page. It is easy to use and uncluttered.” “Thank you for your work, I find it to be very beneficial to me in my ‘Christian walk.’” “I believe your website to be one of the most sound informational sites in existence. I browse daily to await new articles ... I encourage all my brethren to go to this site to view all the material that you have made available. May God continue to bless you all in this worthy effort.” “I was pleased to find this web site with such positive and informative articles. Keep up the good work.” “Your website is a wonderful piece of work.” “Thanks for the rich source for sermons, sermon ideas, |
||||||
196 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50436 | ||
1. Suppose we say: “He who eats and digests his food shall live, but he who eats not shall die.” Would it be sensible to say: “He who eats and digests his food shall live, but he who eats not, and does not digest, shall die.”? Can one digest what he does not eat? Is it even necessary to discuss baptism with one who is in a state of disbelief? 2. The plain truth of the matter is this: Jesus “unequivocally” stated that “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” The terms “believes” and “is baptized” are, in the Greek Testament, compound participles in the aorist tense. In Greek grammar this reflects a format which indicates an action that takes place prior to that of the leading verb (Machen, 116-117), which, in this case, is “shall be saved.” This means that both actions occur before that suggested by the verb. In other words, salvation does not occur until the believer has been baptized. This is as plain as language can be. 3. J.W. Willmarth, a noted Baptist editor and writer, once conceded: “. . . our Saviour said, just before he ascended the heavens: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. We shall hardly dare to tamper with his royal word and make it run, He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized (306). Jesus didn’t baptize “Finally, if baptism is essential to salvation, does it not seem odd that the scriptures specifically state that our Saviour Himself did not baptize (Jn. 4:2).” 1. That is not exactly correct. The text actually says that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John . . . .” This clearly indicates that Jesus did not view the rite as a trivial matter. Professor Alvah Hovey, an eminent Baptist scholar, noted that “it is a maxim that ‘what one does by another, he does himself’ . . . .” Accordingly, he says, this is “rather an explanation of the manner in which Jesus baptized. . .” (110); it does not reflect a minimizing of immersion. 2. This text merely declares that Jesus did not personally administer the immersion. And there is a very good reason for that. There almost certainly would have been a problem in that those who were immersed directly by Christ would have tended to develop an inordinate pride and claimed some superiority over those who were baptized merely by one of the disciples. There is absolutely nothing in this context to suggest that baptism is not essential. |
||||||
197 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50435 | ||
1. There is not a solitary example in the book of Acts of a “conversion” independent of baptism. The cases of Zaccheus and the thief, therefore, prove nothing relative to immersion. Why was Jesus baptized? “Our Savior himself was baptized; surely he didn’t do so in order to ensure salvation. Rather, His baptism is proof positive of the symbolic nature of the act, as opposed to its efficacy.” 1. Our Savior never repented; are we to assume then that repentance is unnecessary? Again, our friend should carefully calculate the consequences of his argument before he makes it. 2. Jesus was baptized in order to “fulfill all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15). This expression has to do with doing “whatever has been appointed by God to be acknowledged and obeyed by man” (Vine, 684). Again, it is here used “in the sense of fulfilling the divine statutes” (Arndt, 195). The point is, for whatever reason he was immersed, Christ obeyed. If, therefore, one is instructed to be immersed today in order to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16), if he follows the Lord’s example, he will obey. Moreover, he will not attempt to argue a contrary position. 3. If our baptism is somehow parallel to Christ’s baptism, and we are baptized in order to demonstrate “symbolically” a salvation we have received already, would that not suggest that Jesus was immersed to “demonstrate a salvation already received”? And if that logic follows, from what was Jesus saved? 1. Clearly, the baptism of Jesus was in a different class than ours, and his case provides no argument to invalidate baptism “for the remission of sins” today. Those who don’t believe are condemned “You frequently cite Mark 16:16, in which Jesus states that ‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . . .’ However, the second clause in that sentence, ‘but he that believeth not shall be damned’ states unequivocally that belief (faith) is the key element to salvation.” 1. While faith may be described as “a key element,” in the salvation process, because it is the motive out of which additional acts of obedience arise, it is not correct to suggest that it is the only element in salvation. Again we stress, such reasoning would exclude repentance. May one be saved without sorrow for sin and a corresponding reformation of life? Surely our friend will not so contend. 2. When Christ affirmed that one who disbelieves will be condemned, it was entirely unnecessary to add further acts of rebellion in order to make the case. The unbeliever is condemned at that point. It is superfluous to extrapolate the disobedience. |
||||||
198 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50434 | ||
* At the time of their encounters with the Savior, neither Zaccheus nor the thief were under the commission which was inaugurated later – on the day of Pentecost. They both lived during a transition period when the law of Moses was still operative (thus providing forgiveness by means of animal sacrifice), and yet the ministry of John the Baptizer had begun also (Lk. 16:16). It was a very unique time. Further, John baptized “for the remission of sins” (Mk. 1:4), and vast multitudes were immersed by him (Mt. 3:5-6). It cannot be established whether or not either of these gentlemen had been exposed to John’s preaching, or whether or not they had, at some point, obeyed his message relative to baptism. They might very well have, and then, one or the other of them could have lapsed into his old ways again. One thing we do know is this: those who heard John’s preaching, and who ignored his baptism, were rejecting the counsel of God (Lk. 7:30). Here is an interesting question: if refusing John’s baptism was a rejection of God, what would be the case with reference to one who refuses the baptism commissioned by Him whose shoes John was unworthy to bear? * During the days of His public ministry, Christ had the power to personally forgive sins, independent of the rite of baptism (cf. Mk. 2:5). When the Lord died, however, his will was subsequently expressed in the written record of the new covenant (Heb. 9:15-17). The Savior’s “will” is now mandated by means of a written code. That ratified will (cf. Mt. 26:28) requires immersion “for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). No one has the right to argue that forgiveness may be bestowed in some other fashion. |
||||||
199 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50433 | ||
1. had been foretold by the prophet Joel, this declaration was made: “And it shall be, that whosoever, shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). To what does “calling” on the name of the Lord refer? Surely not merely verbalizing the expression, “Lord, lord,” for Christ plainly denounced those who do nothing more than that (cf. Mt. 7:21; Lk. 6:46). It is clear that a comparison of verse 21, with the information provided subsequently in this same chapter, demands that “call” be assigned a comprehensive sense. Note this question: Is the “saved” of verse 21 equivalent with “remission of sins” in verse 38? Yes it is; the blessing is identical. Since there are not alternate plans of salvation for the lost sinner (cf. Jude 3), it becomes obvious that the “call” (v. 21) encompasses the “repent and be immersed” of the later passage (v. 38). To suggest, therefore, that the term “call” somehow negates the specific commands to repent and be baptized in order to enjoy remission of sins, is a serious error. What about Zaccheus and the thief on the cross? Our friendly critic continues: “Jesus announced to all gathered at Zaccheus’ house that ‘This day is salvation come’ (Lk. 19:9); no mention is made of baptism. And as Jesus hung on the cross, the thief crucified next to him recognized His power and majesty; Jesus rewarded the thief’s faith with the memorable promise, ‘Today shalt thou be with me in paradise’ (Luke 23:43). While one could, I suppose, speculate that Zaccheus and his house were somehow baptized in an unrecorded interim, there can be no doubt about what happened on the cross.” 1. Neither Zaccheus nor the crucified thief was explicitly instructed to “repent.” Will it be argued that repentance is a matter of no consequence? One ought to reflect upon the logical extension of an argument before making it. |
||||||
200 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50432 | ||
1. For example, the fact that God is said to be “one” (Dt. 6:4) does not negate the biblical truth so abundantly affirmed elsewhere that God, i.e., the nature of deity, is possessed by three Personalities – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Mt. 28:19-20). A truth emphasized in one passage may be enlarged by additional information in other texts. This is a most fundamental principle of interpretation. 2. While Ephesians 2:8 mentions salvation by grace through faith, later, in the same letter, the apostle affirms that one is “cleansed . . . by washing of water with the word” (5:23). If one concludes that “saved” (2:8) is the equivalent of “cleansed” (5:23), it then becomes obvious that salvation by “faith” is not independent of being “washed with water,” (a phrase admitted by virtually all scholars to be a reference to baptism - Arndt, 481; Thayer, 382). Moreover, while both grace and faith are stressed in Romans 3:22ff – as means of “redemption” – three chapters later the inspired apostle affirmed that one is buried with Christ in baptism that he might walk in “newness of life” (6:3-4). Is “newness of life” a parallel descriptive for salvation? Of course it is. Clearly, then, salvation by grace and faith is not exclusive of other conditions specified in supplementary texts relating to justification. Those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved Our kind critic charges: “In your article on “Promise Keepers” you cite Romans 10:12; interestingly you do not mention the very next verse, ‘whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’” 1. We have published but one article dealing with the Promise Keepers movement. It appeared in our Penpoints section, September 20, 1999. That essay contained no reference to Romans 10:12. But we will happily address the point being made. 2. In Acts 2, after describing a “great and notable day” that |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |