If we're saved by faith

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Joseppi

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2018
887
7
18
In John 9, would the man blind from birth have gained his eyesight if he hadn't gone to the pool of Siloam (SENT) and washed as Jesus commanded him to do?

We walk by faith, not by sight.
Therefore, let not your faith be overthrown by what you see.

By faith we are baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit we are raised with him to new life, water notwithstanding our faith.

Confusion arises in the doubtful that on one hand say they have faith, but on another they claim they are buried into water.

The doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.
He is like a wave of the sea blown about by every wind.

By faith elemental things are ordained for spiritual use. And so, to the doubtful nothing appears spiritual but only elemental.

We are baptized into water before the eyes of every manner of men that see only a washing of water.
But, the spiritual man knows the truth.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

And whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Do not let your conscience fall because of unbelief lest you fall into condemnation and perish.
 
Last edited:
R

Ralph-

Guest

You make it sound like a Nike commercial. I can't name one Christian that I know who has refused to be water baptized after their conversion.
I can't count the number of people I've met in church who weren't baptized and resisted it and tried to think of all kinds of reasons why it's okay for them not to. My own father was one of them. He finally did do it, though.

If the church would stop destroying this simple command of Jesus by playing games with it we would not have ridiculous threads like this. It's an obedience born of faith just like any other required obedience. To not do it, or not want to do it is a bad sign. People need to examine their relationship with Christ if they hesitate to be water baptized.
 

Dan58

Senior Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,991
338
83
why does the Bible say we have to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38

Baptism is just the outward showing of an inward commitment. It publicly demonstrates a persons desire to be born from above and to live for the spiritual everlasting things instead of a stagnant temporary physical existence. Its also symbolic of being washed from sin (blood of the lamb) and our desire and effort to turn from sin.

Forgiveness comes with repentance. If we aren't trying to turn from sin, have no remorse for sin, or don't regret our shortcomings, there is no forgiveness. In other words, you can't pray; 'Lord, forgive me for murdering those people, but I just love killing people and am going to keep doing it '. Odds are, forgiveness ain't coming your way with that attitude :)
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
4,275
1,410
113
Amen! Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 and shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion:

"One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Amen! Let's be honest about the Greek here and admit that grammatically there are different possibilities for interpretation of the verse. Our theology is going to dictate how we interpret it: there is no way to get around that fact.

But there are plenty of other Scriptures that clearly say what is needed for salvation.
 

ComeLordJesus

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2017
372
39
28
Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

We don't know much about this guy, but we do know He repented, because without repentance there is no forgiveness, therefore, no Grace. We also know He knew Jesus was the Christ. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to him, but the Spirit of God". Peter said this "spirit" is given to those who obey Him. (Love Him with all their heart)

So we can be pretty much assured that this "malefactor" was not one that railed against Him. That he had "turned to God" since his incarceration, and that he wasn't just giving Jesus "lip service" on his death bed. He admitted his guilt, and asked for forgiveness. I don't believe Jesus is so shallow that He granted repentance to a random criminal because he paid Him some lip service when he seen his predicament. There is more to this story than meets the eye.
I wonder if someone might use this to try and prove that deathbed confessions are valid.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I wonder if someone might use this to try and prove that deathbed confessions are valid.
They are not valid?

The thief on the cross was a deathbed confession what did Jesus say about his confession?
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
Amen! Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 and shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion:

"One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
This citation is incorrect! I have here on my desk Roberson’s A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, and such a quote does not appear on page 592, or any other page in that Grammar!
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
This citation is incorrect! I have here on my desk Roberson’s A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, and such a quote does not appear on page 592, or any other page in that Grammar!
He is actually quoting Robertsons word pictures of the NT on acts 2: 38 (the reference to page 592 of grammar is in reference to the word eis which is spoken of starting on page 591 of the grammar book.) the actual quote is not from ther grammar book that you have thats why you can not find it.


Here is the whole article taken from the commentary

Repent ye (metanohsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekasto mwn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (ei to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between ei to onoma and en twi onomati with baptizw since ei and en are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou occurs, but ei to onoma in Acts 8:16 ; Acts 19:5 . The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as ei onoma prophtou ( Matthew 10:41 ) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19 , but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on "Mt 28:19" for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). Unto the remission of your sins (ei apesin twn amartiwn mwn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of ei does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7ei doxan hmwn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of ei for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples ei onoma prophtou, dikaiou, maqhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (ei to khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. The gift of the Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumato). The gift consists ( Acts 8:17 ) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
Amen! Let's be honest about the Greek here and admit that grammatically there are different possibilities for interpretation of the verse. Our theology is going to dictate how we interpret it: there is no way to get around that fact.

But there are plenty of other Scriptures that clearly say what is needed for salvation.
Our theology is going to dictate how we interpret it
If our theology will dictate our interpretation, whats to stop us from doing the same with your "plenty of other Scriptures that clearly say"?

Acts 2:38 is about as clear as it gets. If this verse is "confusing", all verses are open to this excuse.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
4,275
1,410
113
If our theology will dictate our interpretation, whats to stop us from doing the same with your "plenty of other Scriptures that clearly say"?

Acts 2:38 is about as clear as it gets. If this verse is "confusing", all verses are open to this excuse.
Good point! And if you have seen my posts on some other threads (not to be named here! :) ) you will know I have said the same thing you are saying here. We should not start with an assumption about theology and then go to verses to prove our assumption. So I agree with you on that point.

But what I am saying is that the Greek wording in Acts 2:38 allows for several different ways to take the meaning of the verse. That is what I see being argued here: the use of the word "eis" is being argued here and what it means. Now if it can be shown clearly that the Greek meaning here is straightforward and completely clear and unambiguous, then you are right.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
4,275
1,410
113
He is actually quoting Robertsons word pictures of the NT on acts 2: 38 (the reference to page 592 of grammar is in reference to the word eis which is spoken of starting on page 591 of the grammar book.) the actual quote is not from ther grammar book that you have thats why you can not find it.


Here is the whole article taken from the commentary

Repent ye (metanohsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekasto mwn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (ei to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between ei to onoma and en twi onomati with baptizw since ei and en are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou occurs, but ei to onoma in Acts 8:16 ; Acts 19:5 . The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as ei onoma prophtou ( Matthew 10:41 ) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19 , but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on "Mt 28:19" for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). Unto the remission of your sins (ei apesin twn amartiwn mwn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of ei does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7ei doxan hmwn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of ei for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples ei onoma prophtou, dikaiou, maqhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (ei to khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. The gift of the Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumato). The gift consists ( Acts 8:17 ) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).
Thanks, EG, for the good research work.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
Good point! And if you have seen my posts on some other threads (not to be named here! :) ) you will know I have said the same thing you are saying here. We should not start with an assumption about theology and then go to verses to prove our assumption. So I agree with you on that point.

But what I am saying is that the Greek wording in Acts 2:38 allows for several different ways to take the meaning of the verse. That is what I see being argued here: the use of the word "eis" is being argued here and what it means. Now if it can be shown clearly that the Greek meaning here is straightforward and completely clear and unambiguous, then you are right.
The issue is not the meaning of "eis", it is not the meaning of Acts 2:38, the issue is not wanting a verse to mean what it states. Any verse can be muddied up if the message does not fit a preferred notion. Those saying Acts 2:38 is not clear are choosing to believe this.

All language allows for different takes on meaning, claiming confusion where there is no confusion is an old trick that is used when no other option is left.

There are no verses that cannot be labeled as confusing or debatable by those who wish to debate.

Acts 2:38 is clear, unless you wish it not to be.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
The chances of the thief being converted and water baptized, prior to being crucified as a thief (not to mention blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus) prior to his conversion makes it very slim indeed! Based on this, I would not say making a case for the thief being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is baseless at all.
Peter thought it was not possible that he would deny Jesus 3 times in such a short time after His arrest but nevertheless he did. Do not be so quick to say peoples mindset cannot turn around quickly. Peter went from defending Him with force to denying Him with a curse in a matter of a few hours.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
He is actually quoting Robertsons word pictures of the NT on acts 2: 38 (the reference to page 592 of grammar is in reference to the word eis which is spoken of starting on page 591 of the grammar book.) the actual quote is not from ther grammar book that you have thats why you can not find it.


Here is the whole article taken from the commentary

Repent ye (metanohsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekasto mwn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (ei to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between ei to onoma and en twi onomati with baptizw since ei and en are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou occurs, but ei to onoma in Acts 8:16 ; Acts 19:5 . The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as ei onoma prophtou ( Matthew 10:41 ) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19 , but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on "Mt 28:19" for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). Unto the remission of your sins (ei apesin twn amartiwn mwn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of ei does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7ei doxan hmwn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of ei for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples ei onoma prophtou, dikaiou, maqhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (ei to khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. The gift of the Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumato). The gift consists ( Acts 8:17 ) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).
ANYONE can find a modern "scholar" to back up any notion they want to be true. You don't want Acts 2:38 to be true so you are trying to find someone to scratch that itch.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
55,885
26,046
113
The issue is not the meaning of "eis", it is not the meaning of Acts 2:38, the issue is not wanting a verse to mean what it states. Any verse can be muddied up if the message does not fit a preferred notion. Those saying Acts 2:38 is not clear are choosing to believe this.

All language allows for different takes on meaning, claiming confusion where there is no confusion is an old trick that is used when no other option is left.

There are no verses that cannot be labeled as confusing or debatable by those who wish to debate.

Acts 2:38 is clear, unless you wish it not to be.
Kind of like John 1:1 and 1:14, huh? Yes, Scripture is very clear that Jesus is God, and that we are saved by grace through faith in the shedding of His righteous blood as a ransom for many, that we may be reconciled to God and attain to life ever after, being born again of the Spirit of God, for the flesh counts for nothing.


 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
Amen! Let's be honest about the Greek here and admit that grammatically there are different possibilities for interpretation of the verse.
There are basically two very different interpretations of Acts 2:38.

1. The interpretation of the Church Fathers, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglican churches, the Lutheran churches, the Methodist churches, and the Presbyterian churches.

2. The interpretation of Churches which hold to Baptist theology.

Our theology is going to dictate how we interpret it: there is no way to get around that fact.
I am a theologically conservative Baptist Christian, but I know better than to read my Baptist theology into a verse like Acts 2:38 which is expressly clear unless one reads his Baptist theology into the verse.

Acts 2:22. “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—
Acts 2:23. this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
Acts 2:24. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
Acts 2:25. For David says concerning him, “‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
Acts 2:26. therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope.
Acts 2:27. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.
Acts 2:28. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’
Acts 2:29. “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Acts 2:30. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne,
Acts 2:31. he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Acts 2:32. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Acts 2:33. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Acts 2:34. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
Acts 2:35. until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
Acts 2:36. Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Acts 2:37. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Acts 2:38. And Peter said to them, “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.
Acts 2:39. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (ESV, 2011)

Peter’s preaching in Acts 2:22-36 convicted his Jewish audience of the fact that they had crucified the man whom God had made both Lord and Christ, and they asked Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replies and tells them that they must “repent and be baptized” (μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω). The construction in both the Greek and the English shows that both acts are of equal weight—and that both acts are necessary!

Moreover, we know from 1 Peter 3:18-22 that Peter believed that water baptism, when it is “an appeal to God for a good conscience,” “saves” the recipients of water baptism.

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. (NASB, 1995)

Peter finds here a correspondence between the water of the flood and the water of baptism. The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed. Corresponding to that, water baptism, when it is not merely the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, now saves us. Compare Colossians 1:9-14,

Col. 1:9. For this reason also, since the day we heard of it we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,
10. so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11. strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously
12. giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
13. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (NASB, 1995)

The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed; Christ “rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”

Peter sees salvation being accomplished through water baptism. Paul apparently did also,

Titus 3:4. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6. whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7. so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (NASB, 1995)

Paul clearly states here that God our Savior “saved us… by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” Paul and Peter were both Jews, and to a Jew washing with water for spiritual cleaning and water baptism were very closely related to each other. The very large majority of New Testament scholars believe that both Paul and Peter taught that water baptism is effectual for the salvation, and the Early Church Fathers taught that God’s Grace for salvation was conferred upon believers through water baptism. This appears to me to have been the case in the Early Church, not as the exclusive means of conferring grace, but as the typical means. In Acts 10:44, we find a definite exception, and in my experience, the exception has become the norm.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Moreover, we know from 1 Peter 3:18-22 that Peter believed that water baptism, when it is “an appeal to God for a good conscience,” “saves” the recipients of water baptism.
An appeal is like a ceremonial law as that seen used as a shadow.It does not make perfect. It was like the appeal from Aaron's two son before they were ceremonial baptized by water before the entered the priesthood of believers .They has good intention yet brought unauthorized oral tradition of men and were destroyed.

Appeals do not make ones conscience perfect.

It saves their flesh as a parable in respect to that seen, the temporal, not the unseen, eternal . But literal water cannot save ones soul.

The parable was historically true they did not drown but it does also give us the spiritual understanding, hid from those who have not the Spirit of Christ and therefore no spiritual understanding
which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things not seen (the faith principle) with same spiritual not seen.

If we are to walk by faith and not by sight . I would think the prescription used in parables must be applied or men will begin thinking the things seen do have some redeeming value other than idol images.

2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Water can get a person wet nothing more and no less. The Baptism of the holy Spirit is done in the authority of one not seen ,the eternal
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,043
13,050
113
58
Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Yet prior to this, Matthew and Mark indicate the “thieves” (plural) reviled Jesus in the same way.

*Matthew 27:44 - ASV And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach.

AMP The robbers who had been crucified with Him also began to insult Him in the same way.

NKJV Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.

NASB The robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words.

RSV And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.

*Mark 15:32 - ASV - Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reproached him.

AMP - Let the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed), the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe and trust [in Him]!” Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him.

NKJV - Let the Christ, the King of Israel, descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Even those who were crucified with Him reviled Him.

NASB - Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!” Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him.

RSV - Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

We don't know much about this guy, but we do know He repented, because without repentance there is no forgiveness, therefore, no Grace.
We absolutely know that he repented, afterwards, but not in the beginning, as we saw in Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32.

We also know He knew Jesus was the Christ.
John 20:31 - but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Flesh and blood did not reveal this to him, but the Spirit of God".
Matthew 16:16 - Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Peter said this "spirit" is given to those who obey Him. (Love Him with all their heart)
Those who repent and believe the gospel have obeyed Him. Choosing to believe the gospel is the act of obedience that saves. Romans 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us (see Acts 10:43-47; 15:8,9) when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

Ephesians 1:13 - In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.

I've seen works-salvationists write a blank check with the word "obey" in Acts 5:32 then fill in whatever amount of works they feel are necessary to be saved and call that "obey Him." For some it's obey Him by getting water baptized, then you will receive the Holy Spirit and in your case, it appears to be obey Him by "loving Him with all your heart," then you will receive the Holy Spirit, yet both of these latter views are erroneous.

So we can be pretty much assured that this "malefactor" was not one that railed against Him.
*Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 state otherwise.

That he had "turned to God" since his incarceration, and that he wasn't just giving Jesus "lip service" on his death bed. He admitted his guilt, and asked for forgiveness.
The one thief admitted his guilt, asked for forgiveness and it was not merely "lip service" because Jesus promised him that today he would be with Him in Paradise. Jesus knew his heart.

I don't believe Jesus is so shallow that He granted repentance to a random criminal because he paid Him some lip service when he seen his predicament. There is more to this story than meets the eye.
Jesus obviously did not grant repentance to a criminal that paid Him some lip service, but to a criminal who truly repented and believed in Him. It was a true death bed conversion.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,043
13,050
113
58
Peter thought it was not possible that he would deny Jesus 3 times in such a short time after His arrest but nevertheless he did. Do not be so quick to say peoples mindset cannot turn around quickly. Peter went from defending Him with force to denying Him with a curse in a matter of a few hours.
Peter was a genuine disciple of Christ who had a temporary, weak moment because he was afraid, yet after the Holy Spirit was given, we find him boldly confessing Christ (Acts 2:14-24; 4:8-13). We know that prior to Peter's weak moment, he was a believer and genuine disciple of Christ who confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Where do we find the proof that prior to his crucifixion, the thief was a believer and a disciple of Christ? *You are grasping at straws.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
ANYONE can find a modern "scholar" to back up any notion they want to be true. You don't want Acts 2:38 to be true so you are trying to find someone to scratch that itch.

actually all I have to do is look at the greek and see how the words are used.

This same argument can be used against you by the way. You want what you think to be true, so you find people who scratch your itch.