Saved by faith alone?

Luke 24:47-this is AFTER Jesus died on the cross; just before his ascension into heaven. He told his disciples that “repentance and remission of sins would be preached “to all nations” BEGINNING at Jerusalem. They were instructed to “wait in Jerusalem”. for the Holy Spirit which they would receive from on high.

50 days later, there are Jews at Jerusalem “from every nation under heaven”; the Holy Spirit is poured out on the disciples and Peter tells the Jews to “REPENT and be baptized …For The REMISSION of SINS.” This was the “beginning” that Jesus was talking about in Luke 24. It was not preached before that day. The thieves had been dead for over a month.

According to Hebrews the salvation Jesus spoke of was still applicable after his death.

“Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭4‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/heb.2.1-4.ESV

“And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭7‬:‭50‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/luk.7.50.ESV

Luke 24:47-this is AFTER Jesus died on the cross; just before his ascension into heaven. He told his disciples that “repentance and remission of sins would be preached “to all nations” BEGINNING at Jerusalem. They were instructed to “wait in Jerusalem”. for the Holy Spirit which they would receive from on high.

50 days later, there are Jews at Jerusalem “from every nation under heaven”; the Holy Spirit is poured out on the disciples and Peter tells the Jews to “REPENT and be baptized …For The REMISSION of SINS.” This was the “beginning” that Jesus was talking about in Luke 24. It was not preached before that day. The thieves had been dead for over a month.

Luke 24:47-this is AFTER Jesus died on the cross; just before his ascension into heaven. He told his disciples that “repentance and remission of sins would be preached “to all nations” BEGINNING at Jerusalem. They were instructed to “wait in Jerusalem”. for the Holy Spirit which they would receive from on high.

50 days later, there are Jews at Jerusalem “from every nation under heaven”; the Holy Spirit is poured out on the disciples and Peter tells the Jews to “REPENT and be baptized …For The REMISSION of SINS.” This was the “beginning” that Jesus was talking about in Luke 24. It was not preached before that day. The thieves had been dead for over a month.

Where Luke 24:47 is concerned many of the oldest manuscripts have eis in them. P75, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus for example. Repentance eis remission of sins. If you translate this the way eis is treated in Acts 2:38 you have repentance for remission of sins. That is what you will find in Luke 24:47 if you look it up in the ESV. This lends credibility to the idea that repentance connects with forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38. So Jesus said that repentance for the remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Personally I like to think of eis as ”into”. Repentance into remission of sins in Luke 24:47. Repent and be immersed into forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38. Both of these agree completely with what we see in Ephesians 1:13.

“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭13‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/eph.1.13.ESV

“and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭47‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/luk.24.47.ESV

Here is an alternate translation of Acts 2:38:

“Kefa answered them, “Turn from sin, return to God, and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh!”
‭‭Acts of Emissaries of Yeshua (Act)‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬ ‭CJB‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/1275/act.2.38.CJB

They all agree perfectly.

Mark 16:16 is not an issue. Whoever believes and is immersed will be saved. We are all immersed and sealed into Christ with the Holy Spirit when we believe. Just like these verses say.

I wonder if there is merit to being saved by grace alone

I don’t do a lot of studying of the Greek and ancient manuscripts. My faith is simple; I believe the average person can understand God’s words and commands without a knowledge of the Greek, or Hebrew. I’m not saying it isn’t HELPFUL at times, but I just don’t believe it is NECESSARY to understand what God is saying. I have nothing against increasing our knowledge and understanding of scripture, as long as we don’t use that to try to find a “loophole”. to make a passage “fit” a certain doctrine. As some have said, and rightly so, you can prove ANYTHING by the Bible.

I am not accusing you
of that and I admire your knowledge of Greek words. I just tend to take things at face value as long as it harmonizes with the Bible as a whole. Like Acts 2:38. If you take verse 38 at face value, it means that baptism removes your sins. That is harmonious with all of the other scriptures in the Bible that talk about baptism. Like Acts 22:16 where it says that baptism “washes away sins.” And Peter himself said that baptism saves us in 1 Peter 3:21. That equates removing sins and washing away sins. That makes baptism essential to salvation which harmonizes with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16. So, all of the scriptures harmonize with each other and you have no contradictions. Yes, “Eis” is a preposition and is sometimes translated “because” “for” “into” etc. but it needs to harmonize with the context of the verse and all of the other scriptures on that subject.

To make “eis” mean “because of” or into in Acts 2:38, you have to also change the meaning of Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Mark 16:16. Or it immediately contradicts all of those scriptures. I have seen lengthy explanations to make 1 Peter 3:21 mean something entirely different than “baptism saves us.” And people have been trying to discredit Mark 16:16 and take it out of the cannon for years, along with the entire book of James because of 2:24. I read that Martin Luther literally cut out or tore out the Book of James from his Bible. ( I don’t know if that is true or not.).

You and I have reached very different conclusions about what these verse teach—each giving his or her reasons for believing what we do. Sometimes I wish Jesus was still here, so we could ask, “Lord what do you think? But then, that is why we have the Bible. Paul says we have the mind of Christ , so maybe we already know. Just my thoughts.

There are no Bibles that translate the "eis" in Acts 2:38 as "because of".

Regardless of how old or how modern the translation.

Regardless of what language is used. (Dutch, Japanese, Swahili or Esperanto)

People will simply grasp at any straw that might help them sleep better at night.

The old "eis" really means "because of" and every Bible keeps getting it wrong has long been debunked.

I came across this comment concerning eis (sometimes translated "for") in my bible software concordance: ""For" (as used in Ac 2:38 "for the forgiveness … ") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery," "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works."

Interesting that you mention Esperanto. The Esperanto bible has Acts 2:38 as:

Kaj Petro diris al ili: Ekpentu, kaj baptiĝu ĉiu el vi en la nomo de Jesuo Kristo por forigo de pekoj, kaj vi ricevos la donacon de la Sankta Spirito.

That is, in English, "And Peter said to them: Repent and become baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the putting away of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

I don’t do a lot of studying of the Greek and ancient manuscripts. My faith is simple; I believe the average person can understand God’s words and commands without a knowledge of the Greek, or Hebrew. I’m not saying it isn’t HELPFUL at times, but I just don’t believe it is NECESSARY to understand what God is saying. I have nothing against increasing our knowledge and understanding of scripture, as long as we don’t use that to try to find a “loophole”. to make a passage “fit” a certain doctrine. As some have said, and rightly so, you can prove ANYTHING by the Bible.

I am not accusing you
of that and I admire your knowledge of Greek words. I just tend to take things at face value as long as it harmonizes with the Bible as a whole. Like Acts 2:38. If you take verse 38 at face value, it means that baptism removes your sins. That is harmonious with all of the other scriptures in the Bible that talk about baptism. Like Acts 22:16 where it says that baptism “washes away sins.” And Peter himself said that baptism saves us in 1 Peter 3:21. That equates removing sins and washing away sins. That makes baptism essential to salvation which harmonizes with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16. So, all of the scriptures harmonize with each other and you have no contradictions. Yes, “Eis” is a preposition and is sometimes translated “because” “for” “into” etc. but it needs to harmonize with the context of the verse and all of the other scriptures on that subject.

To make “eis” mean “because of” or into in Acts 2:38, you have to also change the meaning of Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Mark 16:16. Or it immediately contradicts all of those scriptures. I have seen lengthy explanations to make 1 Peter 3:21 mean something entirely different than “baptism saves us.” And people have been trying to discredit Mark 16:16 and take it out of the cannon for years, along with the entire book of James because of 2:24. I read that Martin Luther literally cut out or tore out the Book of James from his Bible. ( I don’t know if that is true or not.).

You and I have reached very different conclusions about what these verse teach—each giving his or her reasons for believing what we do. Sometimes I wish Jesus was still here, so we could ask, “Lord what do you think? But then, that is why we have the Bible. Paul says we have the mind of Christ , so maybe we already know. Just my thoughts.

I didn’t use eis as because of. However, if you want to see it used that way Matthew 12:41 is a good example. I gave you another option. Just let eis have it‘s most basic translation as ”into”. Acts 2:38 then becomes repent and be immersed into forgiveness of sins. This is what happens in Ephesians 1:13. Having believed they were sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit. It’s not a physical water immersion.

Think about Luke 24:47 and the use of eis there. Jesus said repentance into remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations. Notice he didn’t say baptism for the remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations. If you see eis as into in Acts 2:38 then it is repentance that sets the spiritual immersion into motion and it is consistent with what Jesus told them. Someone might say I will just stick with “and“ in Luke 24:47. I have come to believe that ”into“ is the correct version. This is why. When someone believes they have had a change of mind. So, repentance and coming to believe represent the same thing. Notice how Peter remembers the Luke 24:47 discussion with Jesus.

“And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10‬:‭42‬-‭43‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.10.43.ESV

I don’t do a lot of studying of the Greek and ancient manuscripts. My faith is simple; I believe the average person can understand God’s words and commands without a knowledge of the Greek, or Hebrew. I’m not saying it isn’t HELPFUL at times, but I just don’t believe it is NECESSARY to understand what God is saying. I have nothing against increasing our knowledge and understanding of scripture, as long as we don’t use that to try to find a “loophole”. to make a passage “fit” a certain doctrine. As some have said, and rightly so, you can prove ANYTHING by the Bible.

Does the phrase, "saved by faith" equivalent to the term, "saved by faith alone"?

No. The scripture defines "faith without works" as "faith alone" , and says that "faith alone" is "dead".

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?....

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only....

Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You don't need to find a loophole to make a passage fit, if you are reading a translation that has already found the loopholes for you and is making passages fit certain doctrines.

Faith that remains alone (barren of works) demonstrates that it's dead. In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims (key word) he has faith but has no works (to evidence his claim). That is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So, when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. So, James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!

Did I say we are saved by works? The question was, "Are we saved by faith alone?" James says faith alone, faith without works, is dead. How can dead faith save? Why are you insisting that we are saved by faith alone, when scripture clearly says that faith alone is dead? What is your agenda here, in directly contradicting what scripture says? Why is your tradition more important than the clear statements of scripture?

A question??
Do you think we can have total victory over sin?

All have sinned.
We are saved by faith alone.

Christ came to save us from sin, not to save us in sin.