I read the 1st line and that was enough. Baptism IS NOT a public declaration of anything to anyone and is modern day nonsense. Who was the Ethiopian eunuch making a public declaration to in Acts 8? It was just him and Philip in the middle of nowhere!
Are gifts evidence of salvation?
- Thread starter Lamar
- 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.
Hmm...
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Acts 10:43 KJV] 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 10:18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.
Many verses can be cast about, using them as weapons against each other, and still the truth of it all be missed.
Sparring by pitting verses against verses like swords and lances, that's a common practice that leads nowhere. The couple of mentions of baptism in relation to remission of sins, not water baptism specifically, but just baptism, of which differed between John and Christ, this topic really should not be so divisive on that basis.
Philippians 1:15-16
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Christ through His Holy Spirit, is more can able to lead and guide His followers in all that they should do for Him in the place of the strife that so besets so many.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
MM
The New Testament uses the term baptism in four different ways: baptism by water, such as Acts 2:38, etc., by Holy Spirit in Titus 3:3-9, etc., by fire in Matthew 3:11, etc., and metaphorically for the association believers have in Christ's death, such as in Romans 6:4, etc.
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
If water baptism were an additional element required for salvation, or even remission of sins, which is said to be only on the basis of faith in the shed Blood of Christ, then it should not have ever been left out in all the plethora of other verses that speak centrally of the Gospel, faith, and the shed Blood. When folks demand the centrality of something that is not addressed centrally in so many other places, then we have to consider that the baptismal element is not necessarily limited to the physical aspect that is lauded with such force so as to drown out what ALL scripture has to say on the topic. This tendency toward exclusionism rings very hollow.
John 3:14-15
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
If water baptism were so central to the saving of any soul, then many, many verses remain utterly silent to that allegedly most important element of dogma. The scriptures are then handled as being in error by way of exclusion, or silence, on that one allegedly most important element of dogma.
I was water baptized, but that is not what saved me. I was saved before I was dunked!
Just saying that I simply don't see your point when doing a systematic study on the topic. That dogma just doesn't leap forth from the text throughout.
MM
(a) Correct Formula: GRACE THROUGH FAITH = SALVATION + WORKS
(b) Incorrect Formula: GRACE THROUGH FAITH + WORKS = SALVATION
(b) Incorrect Formula: GRACE THROUGH FAITH + WORKS = SALVATION
There are 4 gospels. Why doesn't each one say exactly the same thing??? By your logic, actually illogical, in each account, the exact same thing should be found in total. Is that what the reality is?? NO. Each gospel is different, some saying more, some less, some slightly different. So, do you pick only one of the four that you like the best for whatever reason, or do you see what they all say and combine the content of each to get the entire picture? Same with the rest of NT scripture. Scripture doesn't conflict with or negate other scripture. You must see what they all say, some more, some less, some even mute, abns then combine what they all say in total to see and understand the entirety of the message on any given subject such as salvation.
Wow!!
Peter commands it so that your sins are forgiven. (Acts 2:38)
Ananias commands it to wash away sins. (Acts 22:16)
John the Baptist commands it so that our sins are forgiven. (Mark 1:4)
Jesus ties it to salvation. (Mark 16:16)
Peter writes that it is what saves us. (1st Peter 3:21)
Jesus uses it to fulfill all righteousness. (Matthew 3:15)
Jesus connects it to being born again. (John 3:5)
Paul ties it to being buried and raised with Jesus. (Romans 6:3)
Paul was commanded to do it. (Acts 9:6)
Paul ties it to putting on Christ. (Gal. 3:27)
Yet you declare it nothing more then a "public declaration"?
It is comments like this that exposes the true underbelly of faith alone regeneration theology.
Lamar
In Acts 2:37, their "belief" at this point was "mental assent" that Jesus was the Messiah, and they were guilty of crucifying Him. That is not saving belief yet. They still needed to repent (change their mind) about Jesus further which would culminate in believing in/trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:39; 16:31) Those who have truly repented believe in Jesus unto salvation and those who believe in Jesus unto salvation have already repented in the process of changing their minds and choosing to believe in Jesus unto salvation. Two sides to the same coin.
Conjecture, pure and simple.
You are injecting your faith alone regeneration theology into these verses. There is nothing in the verbiage to suggest "faith alone" was even being considered much less even mentioned at this point.
Was winded just reading this sentence. If they were "already repented" why would Peter command them to repent?
Poor choice of idiom.
You can believe to a point and not truly repent. (John 8:30-31)
You can repent to a point and not truly believe. (1st Sam. 15:24)
Faith and belief are not 6 of one and half dozen of another. Hence the need and use of two different words.
Lamar
How is it saving belief without repentance? You don't ask, "what shall we do" if you are still lost. They still needed to repent, which means they have not yet placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, even though at that point they believed "mental assent" that they were guilty of crucifying their Messiah.
I have already covered this with you multiple times. You don't even seem to understand what it means to place your faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9) It's not to be confused with an empty profession of faith/dead faith that remains alone "barren of works." (James 2:14)
For further help see the link below:
Faith and Repentance (cofcdilemma.org)
Repent (change your mind) --new direction of this change of mind-- (faith in Christ alone for salvation). Simple. I never said they already repented unto life prior to repenting.
It's actually a perfect idiom. Repent (change your mind) new direction of this change of mind (faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation). Two sides to the same coin. This change of mind, focuses on the new direction it ultimately must take, namely, trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
In regard to John 8:31-59, these Jews who were said to have "believed in him" turned out to be slaves to sin, indifferent to the words of Jesus’, children of the devil, liars, accused Jesus of having a demon and were guilty of setting out to stone and kill the one they have professed to believe in. We can see at best, these Jews believed in Him (based on their own misconceptions and expectations) of Jesus, yet upon gaining further knowledge about Jesus through His words, we see they did not believe unto salvation and become children of God (John 1:12; 3:18) but were instead children of the devil. So, you can believe to a point, just like the demons in James 2:19 who believe "mental assent" that "there is one God," but they have not truly repented, and they do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are not saved. (Acts 16:31)
You can change your mind to some extent yet still fall short of saving belief.
They are still two sides to the same coin in regard to obtaining salvation.
Mathew 21:32 - For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. *Notice the order.
Mark 1:15 - And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel. *Notice the order.
Acts 20:21 - testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. *Notice the order.
Acts 2:38-39
New International Version
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
No formula needed, just scripture.
Now if only you would dig deeper to see what this really says, and not place your eternal trust in an english translation. And interpret it in a way it does not contradict other passages of scripture.
Maybe you could learn something
Sadly, I am losing hope this will happen
Lamar. Did you know there are degrees of repentance?? That's what Mr. 3rd class mail is inferring. Wonder where thus can be found in the bible? I guess there's truly repent, kinda repent, sorta repent, pretend repent, etc, don't know what other ones there are, but maybe he can expound on this a bit more.
Its easy
If one repents fully, they will be as the tax collector who was unable to even look up to God and called out for mercy
When one does not fully repent. they may believe in Jesus. But unlike the tax collector, they do not fully trust Jesus. they add other things to the gospel. We saw this in pauls day when the jews tried to add works of the law to the gospel.. They did not fully repent. and were called fools. Sadly we have these today, only instead of works of the law. They use other works as means to find eternal life.
then we have a complete lack of repentance. and these are those who deny God totally.
Perhaps DJT. You would be kind enough to explain how your personal repentance. Entitles you to be saved, whereas someone else that is still sinning. And begging the Lord to to forgive them is lost forever. True repentance is an ideal, not the reality of everyday life as a Christian.
Sin wars against the flesh and wins often, fact.
This is the truth, DJT. That is one of the reasons why I do not consider. That repentance from sin carries the same weight as grace through faith. Place the emphasis on repentance from trusting in your own efforts. And put your trust solely in the Lord, to deal with everything else.
Let your boast in the Lord be a real bona-fide boast. It is all about Jesus and our salvation is not from us, never was.
Jesus first and Jesus last. Any other trivial doctrine is purely a distraction from the true faith.
Any so called sacrament, any doctrine, any attempt to idolize anything but Jesus, is the give away.
WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED!
I followed the scriptural guidelines to be saved. I heard the word, as did those in the bible, believed it also as those in the bible, confessed publicly my belief in the Lord as did those in the bible, repented, being sorrowful for the past sins committed, a d was baptized into Christ. Having done so, I was saved, my sins being forgiven, received the gift of the Holy Ghost as promised by scripture, and became a Christian, the Lord adding me to his body which is his church.
Give them time and you will find that many believe in different degrees of salvation.
mental only belief = pretend saved
pray Jesus into your heart = kinda saved
predestination = never not saved
perseverance = can't be unsaved
repented only = on the right track saved
speak in tongues = saved plus benefits
insist on faith alone regeneration theology = mega saved!
obey God = heresy!!! --- works salvationist!!!
Nice package deal you have there.
The problem is DJT, you need to explain the difference between "repented, being sorrowful". And a genuine repentance which produces the fruit of the Holy Spirit. We see things differently. The only two ways that I know a Christian when I see one, is a Christian has two traits. One is that boasting in Jesus and an evidence of love from a pure heart.
Being sorrowful on it's own is useless without the desired response on your behalf.
Whether someone repents of their sin is a huge unknown in the Christian world. Many sins are internal and concealed.
I have always been skeptical unless that agape love, is evident at some level.
Talking the talk, Jesus is the Lord, and walking the walk, in the Spirit (i.e. loving others). Is what the Christian life is all about.
I would hesitate at using the gospels themselves to construct doctrine.
Paul was selected by Jesus to explain the gospel of Jesus Christ, according to Peter.
You need to iron-out the doctrines that Paul presents first, then check them with what Jesus declared.
This is not an easy task though. This is the reason why we have an array of different church doctrines.
Jesus called us into unity, not division.
Repentance is a life long process. At the time you are convinced, believe, and decide you want to become a Christian and be baptized as those did in biblical times, what does that (repent) or could that mean at that very point in time, and what could it have meant back then at that point in time to those in the biblical record? Did they have time to make a change in their lives? Did you? Your decision to become a Christian could be spontaneous like at a church service where you're moved to do so and you step out from your seat in response to an invitation after a sermon. What did repent mean on the day of Pentecost to the Jews? Did they have time to be anything other than sorrowful, which they obviously were? Same as all other accounts recorded. Initially, it can only mean sorrow, and maybe a heartfelt intent to change your ways. The scriptures say God repented such as in Gen 6:6 or Exodus 32:14: what does that mean?
So, the thief had a chance to offer up an animal sacrifice for his thievery before being nailing the sins of theft to that cross? Some might say that the sacrifices were not limited to past sins, and yet they had to dip their hand in the blood of another lamb, and lay it upon another that was sent out into the wilderness, declaring their sins upon that lamb.
That gives ample evidence to it pointing to the future Messiah...always to Him, whose death is retroactive toward past and future.
So, given that the relevancy, time wise, of animal sacrifices are a matter of speculation since we can't really trust rabbinic traditions and teachings on account of how much they added to Torah, I still don't buy it that the thief was covered strictly by sacrifices he may not have ever offered up so far as we know. We don't even really know if the thieves were Jews or Greeks. Some may say that Greeks were treated differently in that system of justice, but without having lived in that Era to glean every specific of cultural justice, im not sure anyone can say for sure either way. I'd have to do some in-depth study of what's available to us.
MM