Born again?
- Thread starter Marksixteensixteen
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Well, in the OT, if one is cut off from the nation, he is also cut off from God, he cannot be included in Abraham's bosom/Paradise, after his death.
Israel is only finally saved as a nation when Christ returns for them in the 2nd coming (Acts 3:19-21).
Peter repeated that point in his letter to Israel, that the entire nation must undergo one final fiery trial, during the Tribulation, before the nation can be saved. (1 Peter 1:7-9. 1 Peter 4:12-18).
Israel is only finally saved as a nation when Christ returns for them in the 2nd coming (Acts 3:19-21).
Peter repeated that point in his letter to Israel, that the entire nation must undergo one final fiery trial, during the Tribulation, before the nation can be saved. (1 Peter 1:7-9. 1 Peter 4:12-18).
I never said it was the law that saved, it was always faith that saves, whether in time past, but now, and the age to come.
So if God commanded physical circumcision in Genesis 17:10-14 in time past, you show faith by obeying God. It was that faith that saved you.
But now, God command us not to work but put our trust in Jesus work on the cross (Romans 4:5). We likewise show faith in him during this but now time period, by obeying that, and God sees that as faith.
Likewise, when God command Israel not to take the mark of the beast during the Tribulation to be saved in the age to come, you show faith by obeying God there, and it will be that faith that saves you.
So if God commanded physical circumcision in Genesis 17:10-14 in time past, you show faith by obeying God. It was that faith that saved you.
But now, God command us not to work but put our trust in Jesus work on the cross (Romans 4:5). We likewise show faith in him during this but now time period, by obeying that, and God sees that as faith.
Likewise, when God command Israel not to take the mark of the beast during the Tribulation to be saved in the age to come, you show faith by obeying God there, and it will be that faith that saves you.
-
1
- Show all
If that's the case, then what happened to baptism in (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8.9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..). The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that man is saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications."
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html
Amen! Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed.
In Romans 6:4, the phrase "buried with Him through baptism," (on the surface) appears to support the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. However, even here baptism could be understood as the sign of justification. It's not unusual in scripture to call the reality by the name of its sign. Thus, for example, Paul says that all Christians are circumcised (even though one may not be physically circumcised) - meaning that they possess what circumcision signifies (Philippians 3:3). Using this kind of language, Paul can speak of the reality of the believers’ spiritual union with Christ, and the benefits which flow from that union, in terms of baptism, its sign.
We need to interpret these verses in context. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that faith, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16, 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures. Righteousness is "imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification." (Romans 4:24,25) Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith, believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by faith, not baptism. *Hermeneutics. As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - "A symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality."
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/romans/romans-6-3.html
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/romans/romans-6-4.html
And how are we saved? By grace through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)
Acts 4:4 - However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
Acts 5:14 - And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women.
This is Spirit baptism and not water baptism. By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.. Those who teach salvation by water baptism typically confuse water baptism with Spirit baptism.
Galatians 3:26 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Period.) Not through faith and water baptism. *Also read John 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. *Received Him, given the right to become children of God, through believing in His name, not through water baptism.
Galatians 3:27 - For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on/clothed yourself with Christ. The Greek word for "put on" is "enduo" and means to enclose oneself in, as when one "puts on" clothes or armor or some other item. Involved in this is the idea of "imitation" and "identification." "Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light...put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof" (Romans 13:12,14). This exhortation is written to Christians (those already saved). Evidently then, baptism is not the only way to "put on" Christ. To "put on" Christ is to conform to Him, imitate Him. So it is in baptism; we "put on" Christ, conforming to Him in the ordinance that declares Him to be our Savior.
Now in 1 Corinthians 10:2, we read that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" in the cloud and in the sea, but this does not mean that the Israelites were water baptized into the body of Moses. So in what "sense" were the Israelites baptized into Moses? In the same sense that believers would be water baptized into Christ, in regards to "identification." Not to be confused with believers being baptized by one Spirit into one body....the body of Christ through Spirit baptism.
One does not put on a uniform in order to become a soldier. Simply putting on a soldier's uniform does not make one become a soldier. One is made a soldier first and then is able to put on and wear the uniform that distinguishes or marks them as a soldier.
Putting on a judge's robe does not, in itself, make anyone a "judge." But, one who has been made a judge is qualified to put on "judicial robes" and thus declare their qualifications. So too with being water baptized. The Christian puts on robes for which they have previously been qualified to wear. The putting on of Christ is not what makes one become a Christian, but one which becomes a token of it. If one puts on the clothes of a Christian, in water baptism, without first becoming a Christian (child of God through faith), then one becomes an imposter, and is declaring, in baptism, to be what they are not.
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html
Amen! Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed.
In Romans 6:4, the phrase "buried with Him through baptism," (on the surface) appears to support the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. However, even here baptism could be understood as the sign of justification. It's not unusual in scripture to call the reality by the name of its sign. Thus, for example, Paul says that all Christians are circumcised (even though one may not be physically circumcised) - meaning that they possess what circumcision signifies (Philippians 3:3). Using this kind of language, Paul can speak of the reality of the believers’ spiritual union with Christ, and the benefits which flow from that union, in terms of baptism, its sign.
We need to interpret these verses in context. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that faith, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16, 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures. Righteousness is "imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification." (Romans 4:24,25) Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith, believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by faith, not baptism. *Hermeneutics. As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - "A symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality."
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/romans/romans-6-3.html
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/romans/romans-6-4.html
And how are we saved? By grace through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)
Acts 4:4 - However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
Acts 5:14 - And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women.
This is Spirit baptism and not water baptism. By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.. Those who teach salvation by water baptism typically confuse water baptism with Spirit baptism.
Galatians 3:26 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Period.) Not through faith and water baptism. *Also read John 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. *Received Him, given the right to become children of God, through believing in His name, not through water baptism.
Galatians 3:27 - For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on/clothed yourself with Christ. The Greek word for "put on" is "enduo" and means to enclose oneself in, as when one "puts on" clothes or armor or some other item. Involved in this is the idea of "imitation" and "identification." "Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light...put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof" (Romans 13:12,14). This exhortation is written to Christians (those already saved). Evidently then, baptism is not the only way to "put on" Christ. To "put on" Christ is to conform to Him, imitate Him. So it is in baptism; we "put on" Christ, conforming to Him in the ordinance that declares Him to be our Savior.
Now in 1 Corinthians 10:2, we read that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" in the cloud and in the sea, but this does not mean that the Israelites were water baptized into the body of Moses. So in what "sense" were the Israelites baptized into Moses? In the same sense that believers would be water baptized into Christ, in regards to "identification." Not to be confused with believers being baptized by one Spirit into one body....the body of Christ through Spirit baptism.
One does not put on a uniform in order to become a soldier. Simply putting on a soldier's uniform does not make one become a soldier. One is made a soldier first and then is able to put on and wear the uniform that distinguishes or marks them as a soldier.
Putting on a judge's robe does not, in itself, make anyone a "judge." But, one who has been made a judge is qualified to put on "judicial robes" and thus declare their qualifications. So too with being water baptized. The Christian puts on robes for which they have previously been qualified to wear. The putting on of Christ is not what makes one become a Christian, but one which becomes a token of it. If one puts on the clothes of a Christian, in water baptism, without first becoming a Christian (child of God through faith), then one becomes an imposter, and is declaring, in baptism, to be what they are not.
That is Roman Catholic dogma! The gospels mention that Jesus had brothers and sisters. "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” (Mt 13:55,56). And again: "There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee” (Mark 3:31,32).
Catholic writers stumble on each other trying to find excuses to explain away how Jesus could have brothers and sisters and yet Mary remained a virgin all her life. They appeal to apocryphal writings, such as the so-called Protoevangelium of James, saying that they were actually Joseph’s offspring from a previous marriage. Others say that they were his cousins or relatives. If this was the case, why would the biblical authors use the word ‘brothers’ instead of ‘relatives’ and ‘cousins’? (cf. Luke 1:36; Colossians 4:10).
Mary was a virgin at the conception and the birth of Jesus, her first-born son. However, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. This belief is an invention of human tradition.
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a105.htm
Catholic writers stumble on each other trying to find excuses to explain away how Jesus could have brothers and sisters and yet Mary remained a virgin all her life. They appeal to apocryphal writings, such as the so-called Protoevangelium of James, saying that they were actually Joseph’s offspring from a previous marriage. Others say that they were his cousins or relatives. If this was the case, why would the biblical authors use the word ‘brothers’ instead of ‘relatives’ and ‘cousins’? (cf. Luke 1:36; Colossians 4:10).
Mary was a virgin at the conception and the birth of Jesus, her first-born son. However, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. This belief is an invention of human tradition.
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a105.htm
-
1
- Show all
- Status