Requirements of Salvation

[Guojing]

Your understanding that James believes Jewish people have to follow the OT law is not what is conveyed in the scriptures you present.

Both Acts 15 and 21:20-25, reference a discussion that gave clarification to what was mandated of all NT believers.

Acts 21:20-25 already spelt out clearly that Jews who believed have to follow the Law while Gentiles who believed are to do no such thing. Acts 15, James was the head of the Jerusalem assembly and he concluded the issue, and he only exempted Gentile believers from the Law.

You are not reading those passages literally.

 

[ScottyPchristian]

Peters instructions to those who believed his message regarding Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, included repentance, water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38) These same instructions were given to Samaritans and Gentiles. (Acts 8:12-17 and 10:44-48)

Jesus' statement in John 3:5 "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." parallels the instructions given by Peter.

There is a natural as well as a spiritual birthing process. The natural process includes both coming out of the water's of the womb and receiving the breath of life in one's initial intake of air. If either does not take place the baby is stillborn. The spiritual parallel is seen in one's coming up out of the water after being buried into Jesus' death spiritually in water baptism, and receiving the infilling of the Holy Ghost into one's body.

Remember the word of God says man is without excuse because spiritual principles can be clearly seen in God's creation. (Romans 1:20)

That's all sound biblical doctrine and I thank you for putting it together. I was just trying to confirm that you weren't suggesting that a person is saved, born again or regenerated at the very moment they are baptized. I know some believe that all these happen at our baptism.
My understanding is that baptism is the final outward sign, that we have turned from our sin and repented and trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. I have heard some preachers say that it should be the first step, but I haven't found any Biblical examples of this teaching.

 

[Wansvic]

Yes, as I have said to you, the OT timetable was always national Israel must accept Jesus as their Messiah first, before the other nations could be reached. (Zechariah 8:3-23)

Paul was no longer preaching the gospel of the kingdom by the time he wrote Romans, the gospel of Christ he was referring to there was the gospel of grace that the ascended Christ revealed to him in Galatians 1.

The biblical record attests to the following that contradict's your statement:

1. There is only one gospel as seen in Peter introducing it to both the Jews and Gentiles. He also participated in the conversion of the Samaritans. (Acts chapters 2, 8, 10) Afterward, Paul took on the mantle regarding ministering to the Gentile nations.

Also, see Hebrews 4:1-2, “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them (Jews): but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.”

Jews as well as Gentiles are required to believe the good news and act in obedience to God's instruction to acquire what God has promised.

2. All of Paul's letters were directed to born again believers in churches he had previously established. The epistles focus primarily on what is acceptable conduct for those born again children of God.

3. Reference to Water baptism and Infilling of Holy Ghost in Paul's Epistles:

Paul instructs the born again Corinthians concerning the relevance of their water baptism in the name of Jesus:
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Cor 1:13

He goes on to say:
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1 Cor 1:14-16

Those whom Paul mentioned water baptizing:
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Acts 18:5

The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. 3 John 1-3

I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted (devoted) themselves to the ministry of the saints,)1 Cor 16:15

Paul’s epistle references pertaining to Spirit and water baptism associated with salvation:
(Rom 6:3-5, 1 Cor 1:15-16, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:4-5, Col 2:12, Titus 3:5-6, Heb 4:1-2)

 

[Wansvic]

Acts 21:20-25 already spelt out clearly that Jews who believed have to follow the Law while Gentiles who believed are to do no such thing. Acts 15, James was the head of the Jerusalem assembly and he concluded the issue, and he only exempted Gentile believers from the Law.

You are not reading those passages literally.

Please note Peter's literal statement that Jews and Gentiles shall be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. * (Acts 15:11) He states emphatically that they should not tempt God by trying to force the Gentiles into bondage of the OT law that the Jews themselves had been unable to bear.** (Acts 15:10)

Verse 8 "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 **Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 * But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." Acts 15:8-11

 

[Guojing]

Please note Peter's literal statement that Jews and Gentiles shall be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. * (Acts 15:11) He states emphatically that they should not tempt God by trying to force the Gentiles into bondage of the OT law that the Jews themselves had been unable to bear.** (Acts 15:10)

Verse 8 "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 **Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 * But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." Acts 15:8-11

If Peter's literal statement there was accepted by the rest of the Jews in the Council, he would not have the incident described by Paul in Galatians 2:12.

My point is that you read vs 11 and you thought Peter had the final say about the matter. But Acts 21:20-25, as well as the 2nd half of Galatians 2, clearly indicated that the final conclusion of the Jerusalem Council was that only Gentiles are to be exempted from the Law.

Peter made a suggestion at vs 11, but James, as the head of the Jerusalem assembly, did not accept it. Otherwise Acts 21:20-25 and Galatians 2:12 would not have happened.

 

[Wansvic]

If Peter's literal statement there was accepted by the rest of the Jews in the Council, he would not have the incident described by Paul in Galatians 2:12.

My point is that you read vs 11 and you thought Peter had the final say about the matter. But Acts 21:20-25, as well as the 2nd half of Galatians 2, clearly indicated that the final conclusion of the Jerusalem Council was that only Gentiles are to be exempted from the Law.

Peter made a suggestion at vs 11, but James, as the head of the Jerusalem assembly, did not accept it. Otherwise Acts 21:20-25 and Galatians 2:12 would not have happened.

A couple verses down from the one you note, Paul states that Jews know that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus. And, that indeed, no flesh is justified by the works of the law; Jew or Gentile.

Gal 2:15-16
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Attempting to do the works of the law, whether Jew or Gentile, does not produce one's spiritual rebirth. Only after obedience to the NT commands, initially given on the Day of Pentecost, can the born again child of God become an over comer of sin expressed in the OT law. Empowerment is provided through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. When a child of God stumbles into unintentional sin they can receive forgiveness through repentance.


NKJV

 

[Guojing]

A couple verses down from the one you note, Paul states that Jews know that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus. And, that indeed, no flesh is justified by the works of the law; Jew or Gentile.

Gal 2:15-16
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Attempting to do the works of the law, whether Jew or Gentile, does not produce one's spiritual rebirth. Only after obedience to the NT commands, initially given on the Day of Pentecost, can the born again child of God become an over comer of sin expressed in the OT law. Empowerment is provided through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. When a child of God stumbles into unintentional sin they can receive forgiveness through repentance.
NKJV

No point telling me what Paul believed in. That was why Paul was hated by almost every Jewish believer, who conspire to kill him in Acts 21-22.

My point was that James, Peter and John continue to uphold the law, and they insisted that Jews who believed had to follow the Law. You refuse to acknowledged what was said in Acts 21:20-25.

 

[JBTN]

This is a great verse! But I had to go to Biblegateway.com and put the verse into modern English, to understand what it was saying. Instead of using archaic KJV, why not use modern English? When people cannot understand the language, they are not going to rejoice over a good verse! Here it is in today's English:

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," 1 Peter 3:21 NIV

And here it is in Greek, which is more accurate and easier to read than the KJV:

"ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ," 1 Peter 3:21 SNL Greek NT

Found something interesting in P72. P72 has spaces between many words and also some punctuation. It is supposedly a third or fourth century manuscript. In several places you see a dot between words. Looking this up I found out it is equivalent to a semicolon. In 1 Peter 3:21 a dot appears before Baptism.

σῴζει; βάπτισμα οὐ

This definitely changes the meaning of the verse. Have you ever heard of any discussion about this? Do you think this could be accurate?

 

[Angela53510]

Found something interesting in P72. P72 has spaces between many words and also some punctuation. It is supposedly a third or fourth century manuscript. In several places you see a dot between words. Looking this up I found out it is equivalent to a semicolon. In 1 Peter 3:21 a dot appears before Baptism.

σῴζει; βάπτισμα οὐ

This definitely changes the meaning of the verse. Have you ever heard of any discussion about this? Do you think this could be accurate?

A dot is definitely a semi colon. They used it a lot more in a Greek than we do. But that fact is well know to Translators. So, if there is a dot in Papyrus 72, I have not heard about it. But I did find a paper on it.
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/60/60-4/JETS_60_4_781-791_Strickland.pdf

I can't read the paper right now, as I am on my phone. But I'll try and remember to read it on my computer, after I get my tomatoes and peppers into my garden, interesting topic.

 

[JBTN]

A dot is definitely a semi colon. They used it a lot more in a Greek than we do. But that fact is well know to Translators. So, if there is a dot in Papyrus 72, I have not heard about it. But I did find a paper on it.
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/60/60-4/JETS_60_4_781-791_Strickland.pdf

I can't read the paper right now, as I am on my phone. But I'll try and remember to read it on my computer, after I get my tomatoes and peppers into my garden, interesting topic.

That dot is in Sinaiticus too. Not in Vaticanus.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Found something interesting in P72. P72 has spaces between many words and also some punctuation. It is supposedly a third or fourth century manuscript. In several places you see a dot between words. Looking this up I found out it is equivalent to a semicolon. In 1 Peter 3:21 a dot appears before Baptism.

σῴζει; βάπτισμα οὐ

This definitely changes the meaning of the verse. Have you ever heard of any discussion about this? Do you think this could be accurate?

What are your thoughts?

 

[JBTN]

What are your thoughts?

In everything I have ever seen baptism appears in the first half fo the verse. If the semicolon as shown in P72 and Sinaiticus is correct then baptism is actually in the second part of the verse.

The verse becomes something like this:

and you an antitype now saves; immersion not of flesh, a putting away of the filth, but of a conscience good, the demand toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

In everything I have ever seen baptism appears in the first half fo the verse. If the semicolon as shown in P72 and Sinaiticus is correct then baptism is actually in the second part of the verse.

The verse becomes something like this:

and you an antitype now saves; immersion not of flesh, a putting away of the filth, but of a conscience good, the demand toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Which is how I have always seen it

Baptism like the flood is a symbol of that which now saved. It does not remove the filth (sin) if the flesh (soul) but it is an answer if a good
Conscious toward god through that which does save the resurrection of Christ
at least that is how I have always seen it

 

[BlessedCreator]

If I could I would update the original post and remove the part about 1 Peter 3:21 concerning baptism and having a good conscience toward God. My interpretation of that verse was off. But we do still need to continue in obedience to God and His will to have a good conscience toward Him. Also here is the page which can take you to the complete KJB in PDF format: http://gffg.info/Jesus/KJBPDF.html

 

[Prycejosh1987]

James 2:19
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

This verse shuts out all who say they believe in God and expect to go to heaven on that particular belief.

 

[Robo36]

What about the thief on the cross Jesus saved? Was he baptized?

 

[Wansvic]

What about the thief on the cross Jesus saved? Was he baptized?

The thief died while the OT was in effect. The NT spiritual rebirth did not become available to mankind until after Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Only after this occurred was the Holy Ghost made available to all as seen on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2)

 

[mailmandan]

What about the thief on the cross Jesus saved? Was he baptized?

Amen! Good point. A common argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the OT."

So let's see, after Pentecost, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and before Pentecost, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

In both cases we see repent, baptized/baptism/remission of sins. So in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or was it or FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It would have to be the latter in order to agree with the OT argument from water salvationists. In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. If translated "in order to obtain" the verse does not make sense. I baptize you with water FOR (in order to obtain) repentance? or I baptize you with water FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) repentance? Obviously, the latter.

Whatever baptism is "for" in Acts 2:38, it's "for" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 - "in regards to" remission of sins received upon repentance. See how the water baptism is not necessary for salvation in the OT, but is necessary for salvation in the NT argument doesn't hold water? Before AND after Pentecost, salvation is through belief/faith "apart from water baptism" (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:2-6; 5:1; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

 

[BillG]

The thief died while the OT was in effect. The NT spiritual rebirth did not become available to mankind until after Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Only after this occurred was the Holy Ghost made available to all as seen on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2)

But was he saved?

 

[dcontroversal]

But was he saved?

Yes, indeed he was and that day was with Jesus in Paradise.......this whole argument that O.T. saints were not saved is idiotic....DAVID speaks of his SALVATION in the present TENSE and JOB fully understood the resurrection and when it would take place!