If we're saved by faith

[OneFaith]

I have to say I have never heard that version of a view. While I completely disagree, it was interesting to read. You will be hard pressed (basically impossible) to Scripturally support the conclusion you reach. The overwhelming evidence on regeneration is at the point of Faith Alone in Christ Alone. The Romans 6:3 passage is not addressing"water baptism". Once you get out of Acts there isn't one passage in all the letters that teaches water baptism as essential to salvation. Even Jesus in the Gospel of John never mentioned repent or water as essential components of salvation. Likewise, Paul in Galatians presents justification in a masterful doctrinal presentation where no one should be in opposition to its conclusion. I must side on the overwhelming evidence of passages that clearly teach that regeneration is by Faith Alone in Christ Alone ONLY. Again, I enjoyed reading your view. God's Richest Blessings

Well obviously I disagree with you. But just out of curiosity, what kind of baptism do you think Romans 6:3 is speaking of? And how do you say we are to obey the gospel?

 

[mcubed]

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

Why does the Bible say: [h=1]Romans 10:9-10New International Version (NIV)[/h][FONT=&quot]Romans 10: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.[/FONT]

 

[Magenta]

The causal use of eis is not controversial, it is bogus. Labeling the causal use of eis as just controversial is like labeling the Book of Mormon as holy scripture as just controversial.

Marc did not say it was "just" anything. You are constructing a dishonest argument.

 

[Zmouth]

There is only one door to eternal life, not two, three, or many.

Well, since the term eternal defines any living thing which has no beginning nor end of life, then this universe and all things within it could not be eternal since the heaven and earth had a beginning.

Thus nature itself teaches us that if man has a beginning of life then he can not be eternal; since the eternal does not have a beginning of life, and if not eternal then man would have and end of life; since only the eternal doesn't have an end of life.

But of course, I understand that all things are possible with God so what can nature teach them that the Gospel can't. (See 1 Cor 11:14)

That is the reason that man can not be saved by the law of nature since it is written in the word of God, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die;" and seeing that many of Bibles now contain the word 'heavens' and earth, then even the word does not endure forever.

"So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom." Ps 90:12

The thief on the cross was not baptized but is with Jesus today.

??? Jesus told the thief on the cross that to day, so are there not 12 hours in the day, if a man walks in the day he stumbles not because he sees the light of the world, but if a man walks in the night he stumbles because there is no light in him.

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Luke 3:16

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.Luke 23:43

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12:40

"How that he was caught up into paradise, ...." 2 Cor 12:4

To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Rev 2:7

 

[Sagart]

The answer to your question hinges on a controversy among Greek grammarians and lexicographers.

Thayer, in his Greek/English lexicon does not accept the causal use of 'eis'; but, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich do in theirs.

A.T. Robertson, among others concurs in accepting the causal use of 'eis'.

If we translate Acts 2:38

Believe, and be baptized because your sins are forgiven; the question disappears.

I believe that this is the correct translation.

As is seen on the title page, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon is the English translation of Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. The Clavis Novi Testamenti is a two-volume work, the second edition of which was published in 1851. Thayer finished his translation of this two-volume lexicon on Christmas day, 1885, but it soon became obsolete with the publication (1901-1910) of the research by Gustav Adolf Deissmann on the papyri discovered in Egypt. Indeed, it was this research that established that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek rather than a special Greek dialect found only in the New Testament.

By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as the “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.

On page 290 of the BDAG we read that, in regard to the Greek preposition εἰς, in Acts 2:38 it is used “to denote purpose… so that sins might be forgiven”, as in Matt. 26:28, Mark 1:4, and in Luke 3:3.

Therefore, the correct translation of Acts 2:38 is,

Acts 2:38. Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NRSV)

 

[Sagart]

I started out acknowledging that the causal use of eis was controversial.

I explained both sides of the issue fairly, and then took a position.

With A. T. Robertson; and Bauer Arndt and Gingrich in agreement with me, I am in very good company.

Please explain what you think is wrong with my post, apart from the fact that you disagree with my conclusion.

Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich are not in agreement with you! In their now outdated edition (First Edition, 1957) of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, they write on page 229, “6. Other uses of εἰς—a. controversial is the causative use because of ….” They explain that this use was advocated for by Julius R. Mantey, but they do NOT endorse Mantey’s view. Furthermore, Mantey does NOT include Acts 2:38 as a verse in which he believes that the causative use is found!

You also write that A. T. Robertson is in agreement with you. I believe that you are mistaken here also. If not, please post a detailed citation of where Robertson agrees with you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Well obviously I disagree with you. But just out of curiosity, what kind of baptism do you think Romans 6:3 is speaking of? And how do you say we are to obey the gospel?

We know one thing, it is not water baptism. Or it would have said, Paul actually tells us what the means of baptism is, And it is not water, it is the death of Christ. Thus, since Christ died over 2000 years ago., it can not even be a physical baptism, but must be a spiritual one, performed by God himself (see col 2)

how do we obey the gospel?

the first step is to get rid of any thoughts you are or may be worthy, and there is no act youy can do to save yourself. If we continue to think there is something we can do to earn salvation, we have not fully repented. And are still in sin.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Marc did not say it was "just" anything. You are constructing a dishonest argument.

sadly, when your forced to make the Bible match up to your interpretation. Not your interpretation match up with the word. That is what happens.

If one would open their heart. They would not only see that is in greek can mean on the account of, or because. But so can the word if.

And at Thge leases. It would cause our believe to come to question (ie, we have to use other means to support our view)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

As is seen on the title page, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon is the English translation of Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. The Clavis Novi Testamenti is a two-volume work, the second edition of which was published in 1851. Thayer finished his translation of this two-volume lexicon on Christmas day, 1885, but it soon became obsolete with the publication (1901-1910) of the research by Gustav Adolf Deissmann on the papyri discovered in Egypt. Indeed, it was this research that established that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek rather than a special Greek dialect found only in the New Testament.

By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as the “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.

On page 290 of the BDAG we read that, in regard to the Greek preposition εἰς, in Acts 2:38 it is used “to denote purpose… so that sins might be forgiven”, as in Matt. 26:28, Mark 1:4, and in Luke 3:3.

Therefore, the correct translation of Acts 2:38 is,

Acts 2:38. Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NRSV)

in other words. The Bible is a fraud, we can throw it out because it contradicts itself.

The basis of the law. Which was given to lead us to christ, showed that sin could only be atoned for through animal sacrifice. And it was their faith in that fact that made them whole. Water baptism was not involved, and not even part of the ceremony, so it could not be a part of the fulfilment of that schoolmaster system (which showed sin, and the redemptive act which had to be done in order to redeem a person from that sin ie, cause forgiveness of sin)


As Jesus said himself, he must be lifted up so as moses lifted the serpent, one could look on the lifted up, and be saved. As he also said, he must give his flesh, so whoever believes in him will never hunger, never thirst, Live forever, Never die, and never be lost. Or as he said in John 3, 4 and 6, they HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, And yet no mention of baptism.

poor jesus he was no well informed. And led many astray not telling them they must also be baptised.

 

[mailmandan]

The answer to your question hinges on a controversy among Greek grammarians and lexicographers.

Thayer, in his Greek/English lexicon does not accept the causal use of 'eis'; but, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich do in theirs.

A.T. Robertson, among others concurs in accepting the causal use of 'eis'.

If we translate Acts 2:38

Believe, and be baptized because your sins are forgiven; the question disappears.

I believe that this is the correct translation.

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).

 

[mailmandan]

I am not aware of if the thief on the cross was or was not baptized. How do you know for sure that he was not. As far as I can read the bible does not give an answer either way.

So you believe that that thief may have been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)

In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

 

[mailmandan]

That is the point of contention, though, whether it is water baptism that saves, or it is saved people who get water baptized, following the baptism of the Holy Spirit of God

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

 

[mailmandan]

To Repent and Be Baptized is part of Believing.

In regards to receiving salvation, to repent is to "change our mind" and the new direction of that change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 10:43; 11:17,18). Two sides to the same coin. What do you mean by "baptism is part of believing?" There is a "distinction" between believing "and" being baptized. You can repent and believe the gospel, but not yet be water baptized. I was in a discussion with a Roman Catholic who made this statement below:

We ARE saved by faith - as long as you properly define "Faith". Faith is NOT simply "believing". Faith INCLUDES: Being baptized, eating His body and drinking His blood/partaking the Lord's Supper during Mass, works of mercy and charity, obeying his commandments, doing the will of the Father etc..

His argument about faith being "defined as" and INCLUDES these works above is incorrect and sounds similar to your argument about baptism being a part of believing. Please feel free to explain yourself.

 

[DJ2]

So you believe that that thief may have been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)

In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

So you believe that that thief may have been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)

No, the chances of the thief on the cross being one of the many baptized for the remission of sins before the death of Jesus is rather slim. My point is that it is an assumption to use him as an example of someone known to not being baptized. The issue of rather he was baptized or not is moot since Jesus Himself granted the thief forgiveness.

Anyone claiming the thief on the cross was or was not baptized​ is making an assumption. Making the use of his story as a proof text against baptism baseless.

 

[mailmandan]

No, the chances of the thief on the cross being one of the many baptized for the remission of sins before the death of Jesus is rather slim.

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.

 

[Ralph-]

In regards to receiving salvation, to repent is to "change our mind" and the new direction of that change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 10:43; 11:17,18).

I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds." -Acts 26:20

It doesn't matter if water baptism saves or not. We are commanded to do it. Just do it. Like any other commanded obedience, it's an expression of the faith we claim to have. It's a deed that demonstrates repentance.

A claim to faith that does not have obedience accompanying it is an empty claim until we prove otherwise.

 

[mailmandan]

I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds." -Acts 26:20

Our deeds are the fruit of repentance (Matthew 3:8) but not the essence of repentance.

It doesn't matter if water baptism saves or not.

We are saved by grace through faith, not by works/works of righteousness which we have done (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5).

We are commanded to do it. Just do it. Like any other commanded obedience, it's an expression of the faith we claim to have. It's a deed that demonstrates repentance.

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. Expression of faith, yes. Essence of faith, no. Good deeds are the fruit of repentance, but not the means of our salvation.

A claim to faith that does not have obedience accompanying it is an empty claim until we prove otherwise.

An empty profession of faith is a dead faith (James 2:14-18). Genuine faith results in obedience. All genuine Christians are fruitful, but not all are equally fruitful.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Our deeds are the fruit of repentance (Matthew 3:8) but not the essence of repentance.

We are saved by grace through faith, not by works/works of righteousness which we have done (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5).

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. Expression of faith, yes. Essence of faith, no. Good deeds are the fruit of repentance, but not the means of our salvation.

An empty profession of faith is a dead faith (James 2:14-18). Genuine faith results in obedience. All genuine Christians are fruitful, but not all are equally fruitful.

I wonder how much these fruit inspectors get paid?

 

[Studyman]

Let’s just set baptism aside for a moment, and look at only obedience. Jesus said most people will not be saved (wide is the gate). So what is the difference between the righteous and the unrighteousness?

Well ‘faith-only’ people say “The righteous have faith, and their faith saves them.” But the Bible says faith is obedience- therefore you must at least admit that salvation is not granted without some form of obedience- otherwise everyone would be saved- which makes Jesus out to be a liar.

Is there anyone here who believes the gift of salvation is granted to those who refuse to obey God at all?

Exactly,

How can one separate faith from trust and trust from obedience. Abraham trusted God enough to follow His Instructions. The Bible called this obedience "Faith". Obedience is the one common thread through every example of a "Faithful" person mentioned in Heb. 11.

Eve chose to trust her own mind, her own sight over God's instruction. Abraham did not trust his own mind over God's instructions.

Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Everyone follows something, trusts in something. The Pharisees trusted their own Laws, had faith in their own creation. Zechariahs and Elizabeth didn't trust in the religious traditions of man, but in the instructions of God like Abraham.

It is the age old battle isn't it. Do we listen to God or religious man.

Good post

 

[Studyman]

So you believe that that thief may have been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)

In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

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.