2 Thessalonians 1:8

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Elihoenai

Member
Mar 2, 2020
161
16
18
London, England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Then explain why water baptism was not mentioned when Jesus explained when and how a person is born again of the Spirit was accomplished after His ascension which will be after His crucifixion, which is done by believing in Him is how one is saved aka born again of the Spirit?

Let's read that again;

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

So Jesus was not talking about water baptism but by how a Jew is born into the Kingdom of God by birth of a Jewish woman as that which is born of the flesh is flesh. So the born again of the Spirit has nothing to do with water in verse 5 because of verse 6. We read on...

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

Nicodemus is now asking how one can be born again. Jesus is going to answer him.

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

So now Jesus tells Him when that born again of the Spirit will take place.

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

It will happen after His ascension...

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

His ascension will happen after His crucifixion... ... and as to how one is born again of the Spirit is next.

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

By believing in Him is how one is born again of the Spirit; no water baptism required. God is able to save all who believe in Him without water baptism.

Matthew 3:15-16 King James Version (KJV)

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:


True Disciples happily do what Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ does and get Baptised in water. False Disciples refuse to follow Yeshua Messiah's/Jesus Christ's Perfect Example. You must be Baptised in Jordan to be Saved.

2 Thessalonians 1:8
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew 3:15-16 King James Version (KJV)

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:


True Disciples happily do what Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ does and get Baptised in water. False Disciples refuse to follow Yeshua Messiah's/Jesus Christ's Perfect Example. You must be Baptised in Jordan to be Saved.

2 Thessalonians 1:8

You should question your teaching at that throne of grace in asking Jesus because of how that emphasis is not so plainly taught as such in scripture.
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
1 John 1:6 - If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. Walking in darkness is descriptive of children of the devil. Walking in the light is descriptive of children of God. Only those who are saved/believers are in the light.

Acts 26:18 - to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.

2 Corinthians 6:14 - Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

Ephesians 5:8 - for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light. Children of the devil walk in darkness, not in the light. Children of God walk in the light, not in darkness. IF confirms these positions in verses 6 and 7. It's one or the other.

By your misinterpretation of scripture, you are teaching "type 2 works salvation."

The cleansing of the blood of Christ BEGINS when we believe in Him (Acts 10:43) and continues as only genuine Christians walk in the light. In 1 John 2:9, we read - He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. In vs. 11 - But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

*Compare with 1 John 3:10 - In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, (compare with 1 John 1:6 - does not practice the truth) nor is he who does not love his brother. *Notice that "walks in darkness and hates his brother" is descriptive of children of the devil.

Acts 10:43 - ..everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.

Acts 15:9 - ..purifying their hearts by faith.

Acts 26:18 - to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.

Romans 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

You do not seem to see that the Bible speaks of different types of works and that all works are not the same. Some works will not save as works of merit or perfect works required by the OT law yet obedience to the will of God does save. No verse eliminates obedience from being saved. Since God will not unconditionally save the impenitent disobedient person, then obedience is necessary in order for one to be saved. Nowhere is obedience said to merit salvation.

Luke 10:17 "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." Even though I have obeyed all those things I have been commanded to obey I am still an unprofitable servant for my obedience is not perfect. Imperfect obedience (sinning) does not, cannot merit salvation. But obedience requires continued walking in the light which includes repentance whereby the blood of Christ continues to cleanse away all sins 1 John 1:7. Therefore obedience, though not perfect (God never required man to be perfectly obedient just have a faithful obedience) is a necessary condition that must be emt and continued to be met by a continual walking in the light. IF (conditional word) does not continue to walk in the light (obey) then Christ's blood no longer cleanses away all sin and one becomes lost in those unwashed sins.

Romans 10:13 calling upon the name of the Lord means doing what the Lord says to do (Luke 6:46) in believing repenting confession and baptism (John 3:16; Luke 13:3; Matthew 10:32-33; Mark 16:16). Those that obey are doing what is their duty to do in obeying what God has commanded.


NT faith INCLUDES obedience in repenting confessing and submitting to baptism.
 

mailmandan

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2020
4,444
4,728
113
The Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You do not seem to see that the Bible speaks of different types of works and that all works are not the same. Some works will not save as works of merit or perfect works required by the OT law yet obedience to the will of God does save. No verse eliminates obedience from being saved. Since God will not unconditionally save the impenitent disobedient person, then obedience is necessary in order for one to be saved. Nowhere is obedience said to merit salvation.

Luke 10:17 "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." Even though I have obeyed all those things I have been commanded to obey I am still an unprofitable servant for my obedience is not perfect. Imperfect obedience (sinning) does not, cannot merit salvation. But obedience requires continued walking in the light which includes repentance whereby the blood of Christ continues to cleanse away all sins 1 John 1:7. Therefore obedience, though not perfect (God never required man to be perfectly obedient just have a faithful obedience) is a necessary condition that must be emt and continued to be met by a continual walking in the light. IF (conditional word) does not continue to walk in the light (obey) then Christ's blood no longer cleanses away all sin and one becomes lost in those unwashed sins.

Romans 10:13 calling upon the name of the Lord means doing what the Lord says to do (Luke 6:46) in believing repenting confession and baptism (John 3:16; Luke 13:3; Matthew 10:32-33; Mark 16:16). Those that obey are doing what is their duty to do in obeying what God has commanded.

NT faith INCLUDES obedience in repenting confessing and submitting to baptism.
I see that you subscribe to saved by "these" works and just not "those" works, but that's not what the Bible teaches. (Romans 3:24-28; 4:2-6; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9 etc..). We are saved through faith, not works. Period. Not faith + works or faith + imperfect obedience.

I see that you have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the church of Christ and are unable to see anything beyond your biased church doctrine. :( Until you repent and believe the gospel, the gospel will remain veiled to you and you will continue to promote your "works based" false gospel, which is the result of bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics. Only the Lord can open your eyes to the truth and I will continue to pray for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eternally Grateful

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
We can argue "he said, they said" all day long, but ultimately, that is not going to settle the issue. You were not being completely honest when quoting AT Robertson (which doesn't surprise me). AT Robertson said there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3-6 , the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it. *I noticed that you conveniently left that part out.* AT Robertson also goes on to say - And renewing of the Holy Spirit (kai anakainwsew pneumato agiou). "And renewal by the Holy Spirit" (subjective genitive). For the late word anakainwsi, see Romans 12:2 . Here, as often, Paul has put the objective symbol before the reality. The Holy Spirit does the renewing, man submits to the baptism after the new birth to picture it forth to men. *So your argument is moot.*

I have a John MacArthur study Bible and from his notes on passages of scripture in regards to water baptism, he makes it clear that he does not hold to the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, so "signify" the receptacle of washing itself does not help your argument. I've noticed in certain commentaries that we see the word, "signify" or "signified" which would explain that the washing of regeneration is signified, but not accomplished in the waters of baptism, which fits perfectly with the word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." :)


AT Robertson had not problem that in Matthew 26:28 the Greek is "FOR the remission of sins". Yet when he got to Acts 2:38 with the same exact phrase "for remission of sins in both Greek and English" he is no longer sure what "eis" means. The reason he is no longer sure that eis means "for" is because Acts 2:38 as written by Luke makes baptism necessary in order to being saved. This does not fit Robertson theology therefore his attempt to change Acts 2:38 is NOT based upon the Greek language or grammar but His personal theology. He admits such when he wrote " One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." He did exactly this in letting his personal theology override inspiration.


Robertson does the same thing with Tts 3:5. In order to get around the necessity of water baptism he allows his personal theology to trump inspiration. Tts 3:5 as in Rom 6 both speak of a literal water baptism, a laver of water, a baptismal font where a literal "burial" takes place from which one is "raised up from" (Romans 6:4). After this literal burial and resurrection THEN one walks in newness of life (born again). Hence baptism is for, unto securing salvation and not 'because' one is already walking in newness of life.

Nothing figurative in the contexts at all...... literal laver of water in which a literal burial and resurrection takes place. Robertson allowing his bias to supercede inspiration provides not proof for your position at all. You continue to try and makes things in various verses figurative in an order to get around the obvious water baptism in those verses.
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
This is an earlier quote from you;

Ernest T. Bass said:
"Fleshly birth did not put the Jews into the kingdom of God/the church. Under the OT law physical birth put the Jew into a covenant relationship with God"

I would say you would be hard press to tell the difference between the 2 when under the Old Covenant, they are born into the nation of Israel, the kingdom of God in representing God to the world. John 1:12-13 testified to how the Jews were the sons of God before the New Covenant had come by faith in Jesus Christ is how anyone will become the sons of God now.



The problem here is, that when Jesus explained to Nicodemus when and how one is born again of the Spirit, He says it is by believing Him, the Word, is how one is saved and thus born again of the Spirit. So when talking to Nicodemus, Nicodemus knew about being born of a Jewish woman as a Jew, but he had asked Jesus how one is born again of the Spirit and how and when it could happen. Believing was how and as to when, after His ascension which is after His resurrection.



Since that reference was taken out of context about how husbands were to love their wives as Christ does the church, this is not talking about the salvation moment but about how we grow in our relationship with the Lord through the edification of scripture. This is not about water baptism.



Jesus is the credit for giving the baptism with the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost does the washing of regeneration, and renewing. Not water baptism. Man nor any church do not get that credit for baptizing any one by water.

1Cor12:13-----------Spirit++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>in the body



Is Jesus Christ the Savior or not? Can He save us alone or are you denying His power to save those that believe in Him because they need water baptism for God to save any one that calls on Him to save them, even those who believe in His name? Think about what you are saying, brother.

Water baptism is an ordinance and not a requirement for salvation otherwise you have to explain why the Gentiles had received the promise of the Holy Ghost BEFORE water baptism as that was their born again of the Spirit moment when they were actually saved by believing in Him.

John 3:3-5 only the new birth, a spiritual birth. puts one in the kingdom and not fleshly birth.

Those Jews in Acts 2 had to be born again by being baptised (Acts 2:38) in order to be in the kingdom/church. Their physical birth did nothing for them, could not save them. The Jews wrongly thought that their being descendants of Abraham meant certain salvation for them but they were wrong, Matthew 3:9, Romans 9:1-8.

In John 3:3 one must be 'born again' to see the kingdom of God. In John 3:5 Jesus explains what is meant by "born again" that being born of water and of the Spirit.
One birth with two elements:
1) water
2) Spirit

The role of water is water baptism. The role of the Spirit is His written word that instructs men on how to be saved hence nem are born again..by the word 1 Peter 1:23.

================================

Having the Holy Ghost fall upon Cornelius (Gentiles) had nothing to do with his person salvation.

In the context God did at least two things:
1) gave Peter a vision showing him Gentiles were "clean" and not to be treated differently from Jews
2) God had the Holy Ghost fall upon Cornelius whereby he spoke in tongues.

The purpose of God doing these two things was to show the Jew salvation did not just belong to them alone but salvation was to also go to the Gentiles. In Acts 11 when Peter went to Jerusalem and told the Jews there these two things God had done, and ..."When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Hence these two things accomplished their purpose in showing the Jews salvation was for the Gentiles also. So the Holy Ghost falling upon Cornelius had NOTHING to do with his personal salvation.

Point 1:
In Acts 11 where Peter had to contend with the Jews in Jerusalem as to why he went to the Gentiles Peter says: "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" What did Peter mean by the question " what was I, that I could withstand God?" He meant if he did not allow salvation to go to the Gentiles by means of water baptism then he would be withstanding God, he would be treating the Gentiles differently than the Jews. This is the same point he made in Acts 10:47 when he asked "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" By forbidding water baptism he would be going against God in salvation going to the Gentiles, treating the Gentiles differently from the Jews.

Point 2:
Acts 15:11 Peter says "But we believe that we (Jews) shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)."
Jews and Gentiles are saved in a 'like manner' way. Per the vision God gave Peter he was not to treat Jews and Gentiles differently thereby not withstand God in not allowing salvation to go to the Gentiles by means of water baptism.

The Jews in Acts 2 were saved by obeying the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for remission of sins. Gentiles therefore saved in that like manner way by being commanded to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for remission of sins. The Holy Ghost only fell upon the Apostles and only they spoke in tongues in Acts 2, no one else, eliminating this as as being the means by which Cornelius was saved.

Point 3:
1 Cor 12:29-30 "Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform miracles, do they? Not all have gifts of healing, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all interpret, do they?" Back in the first century, the Holy Ghost did not come to all Christians where they could have a sign, some had no miraculous sign at all but this did not mean they were any less saved than those that did have a miraculous sign. Hence being given the Holy Spirit thereby having a sign has nothing to do with one's personal salvation. Being water baptized does.

Point 4:
In Acts 10 the Holy Ghost first fell upon Cornelius then he was water baptized. Yet in Acts 8 and Acts 19 men were first water baptized then had the Holy Ghost given them in order speak in tongues (signs). This is the exact opposite of what your argument depends upon.

Point 5:
If the ability to speak by means of the Holy Spirit makes the possessor a child of God then what about these?

  1. Balaam prophesied against Balaak by the immediate direction of God (Numbers 23,24). Did that make him a child of God?
  2. The Spirit of God came upon King Saul and he prophesied. Yet God rejected Saul as a wicked king (I Samuel 10:10).
  3. The lying prophet of Bethel was enabled by the Spirit to foretell the sad fate of the man of God, whom by falsehood he had seduced from the Word of the Lord (I Kings 13:11-32).
  4. A dumb animal, Balaam's (donkey), spoke by the Holy Spirit (Numbers 22:27). Did that make the dumb animal, which had no soul, a child of God?
  5. Caiaphas, the wicked high priest, spoke "not of himself" that one man should die and not the whole nation. He held the office of high priest by Roman appointment. Was he a child of God, just because we have a record of the Holy Spirit's speaking through him on one occasion (John 11:41-52)? Was Cornelius Saved Before Water Baptism?

Conclusion:
Having the HG fall upon Cornelius had nothing to do with his personal salvation but was God's way of showing the Jews salvation was not for them alone but was to also to go to the Gentiles thereby Jews were not to treat Gentiles differently in this regard nor to withstand God by not allowing the Gentiles to be water baptized in order to be saved.
 

mailmandan

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2020
4,444
4,728
113
The Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
AT Robertson had not problem that in Matthew 26:28 the Greek is "FOR the remission of sins". Yet when he got to Acts 2:38 with the same exact phrase "for remission of sins in both Greek and English" he is no longer sure what "eis" means.
AT Robertson doesn't sound unsure to me. In regards to Matthew 26:28, he states - The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in Hebrews 20:28. There anti and here peri. Unto remission of sins (ei apesin amartiwn). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins.

Matthew 26:28 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

In regards to Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus said, "This is my body when He took the bread." When He took the cup, He said, "This is my blood." Of course, His body was still His body and His blood was still in His body. He was attributing the reality to the emblem, yet the emblem is not the reality. When a believer is water baptized, sins are not washed away literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. Since it's not possible for an external ordinance to do an internal work on the heart, baptism can not do these things in a literal sense, yet it represents the remission of sins by the death of Christ, which was the real remission (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:22-28). Christ put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself. In experience, the remission of sins comes to us through faith in Christ (Acts 26:18; Romans 3:24-26) and "remission of sins" has three applications: Literally, by the sacrificial death of Christ - Matthew 26:28, experientially, by faith in Christ - Acts 10:43; 26:18 and ceremonially, by water baptism - Acts 2:38; 22:16.

The reason he is no longer sure that eis means "for" is because Acts 2:38 as written by Luke makes baptism necessary in order to being saved. This does not fit Robertson theology therefore his attempt to change Acts 2:38 is NOT based upon the Greek language or grammar but His personal theology. He admits such when he wrote." One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." He did exactly this in letting his personal theology override inspiration.
Just because Robertson said that "one will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not" doesn't mean that he was confused or uncertain. Robertson understands that scripture must harmonize with scripture, but you don't seem to care that your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 is in contradiction to other passages of scripture, so it's you who lets his personal theology override inspiration. The only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony* :)

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). 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.”

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. *These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

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.

*So neither AT Robertson, E Calvin Beisner or Daniel Wallace agree that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins.

Robertson does the same thing with Tts 3:5. In order to get around the necessity of water baptism he allows his personal theology to trump inspiration.
Are you really that brain washed? o_O I don't see Robertson trying to get around anything. I just see you continuing to confuse the symbol with the reality, which continues to trip you up and keep you trusting in works for salvation.

Tts 3:5 as in Rom 6 both speak of a literal water baptism, a laver of water, a baptismal font where a literal "burial" takes place from which one is "raised up from" (Romans 6:4).
I like the way Robertson points out that it is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality. :)

Romans 6:4 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

After this literal burial and resurrection THEN one walks in newness of life (born again). Hence baptism is for, unto securing salvation and not 'because' one is already walking in newness of life.
You are dead wrong and continue to confuse the symbol/picture with the reality and there is a reason for that. The natural man can only understand natural water. :(

Nothing figurative in the contexts at all...... literal laver of water in which a literal burial and resurrection takes place.
False. Are you going to tell me next that when Jesus said, "this is my body," (Matthew 26:26) that He meant it was literally His body? Roman Catholics believe it and make the same mistake you do by also confusing figurative and literal passages of scripture and the end result is salvation by works.

Robertson allowing his bias to supercede inspiration provides not proof for your position at all. You continue to try and makes things in various verses figurative in an order to get around the obvious water baptism in those verses.
It's actually you who allows their bias to supersede inspiration and you wouldn't know proof if it bit you on the nose. I see that your indoctrination into Campbellism runs very deep. There are multiple passages of scripture which make it clear that man is saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:9; 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..). Salvation is through faith in the Savior God and not the water god. *Let me know when you are ready to repent and believe the gospel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eternally Grateful

Bobby Jo

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2019
8,041
3,778
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
They have not grown, matured as they should have.

One of the gifts we're exhorted to aspire to is the gift of prophecy. And as we gain that proficiency, we should probably start with understanding Prophetic Scripture. So do you have any grasp of end-time prophecies, -- or are you still drinking "milk", as evidenced in this TOPIC, as though it were somehow a LIFE ACHIEVEMENT?!?

Bobby Jo
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John 3:3-5 only the new birth, a spiritual birth. puts one in the kingdom and not fleshly birth.

Then why mention how one is born of the flesh to Nicodemus in regards to citing the other of being born again of the Spirit?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Why is it when Jesus answered Nicodemus question that the new birth was to occur after His ascension when someone believes in Him to be saved?

Conclusion:
Having the HG fall upon Cornelius had nothing to do with his personal salvation but was God's way of showing the Jews salvation was not for them alone but was to also to go to the Gentiles thereby Jews were not to treat Gentiles differently in this regard nor to withstand God by not allowing the Gentiles to be water baptized in order to be saved.

The Holy Ghost fell on more than just Cornelius, and it was when they believed in the words spoken of by Peter that by believing in Him was how they had received the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost at their salvation BEFORE water baptism.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

That is how you can know you applied His words wrong in Acts 2:38 because repent from unbelief by believing in Him is how the Jews actually had received the remission of sins and not by water baptism as you believed. That is the only way you can align the truth in His words when Acts 10:43 states plainly how the Gentiles had received their remission of sins by believing in Him rather than think water baptism had something to do with that remission of sins for the Jews since there is only one gospel.
 

Elihoenai

Member
Mar 2, 2020
161
16
18
London, England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
You should question your teaching at that throne of grace in asking Jesus because of how that emphasis is not so plainly taught as such in scripture.

2 Corinthians 13:5 King James Version (KJV)

5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?


Serious students question and examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith.
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
2 Corinthians 13:5 King James Version (KJV)

5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Serious students question and examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith.

Sometimes, serious Bible student may overlook scripture in how to discern good and evil in the world by the scripture. That is why we are to always rely on Jesus Christ as our Good Shepherd to help us understand His words to rightly divide the word of truth thru the Holy Spirit in us.

That examination in the faith with verses 2 & 3 of 1 John 4:1-6 is about knowing Jesus Christ is in us so believers will know later on in life when a spirit comes over them or someone says the Spirit of Christ is "felt" in the worship place or the "Spirit" is "visiting" the place with signs and wonders on already saved believers, they will know that is not the Holy Spirit when He has been in them since salvation at the calling of the gospel.

2 Corinthians 13:5 is the same thing as saying 1 John 4:2 in testing the spirits since what is outside of us in the world is the spirit of the antichrist.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

The reason Paul said that in 2 Corinthians 13:5 was because of his warning that some may preach another Jesus to receive or another spirit ( Holy Spirit, but it is not Him ), or another gospel earlier in this same epistle.

2 Corinthians 11:1Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

No saved believer can received Jesus nor the Holy Spirit again, but many do preach that other false gospel now in these latter days in getting already saved believers to doubt they have the Holy Spirit into seeking a phenomenon where they receive spirits as the world does by seeing it happen by a sign, even the sign of tongues which never comes with interpretation but speak in the same supernatural tongue the world does in gibberish nonsense as 1 John 4:5-6 points out in testing the spirits by testing the tongues they bring as well.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
Then why mention how one is born of the flesh to Nicodemus in regards to citing the other of being born again of the Spirit?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Why is it when Jesus answered Nicodemus question that the new birth was to occur after His ascension when someone believes in Him to be saved?



The Holy Ghost fell on more than just Cornelius, and it was when they believed in the words spoken of by Peter that by believing in Him was how they had received the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost at their salvation BEFORE water baptism.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

That is how you can know you applied His words wrong in Acts 2:38 because repent from unbelief by believing in Him is how the Jews actually had received the remission of sins and not by water baptism as you believed. That is the only way you can align the truth in His words when Acts 10:43 states plainly how the Gentiles had received their remission of sins by believing in Him rather than think water baptism had something to do with that remission of sins for the Jews since there is only one gospel.


John 3:7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." The "ye" refers to Nicodemus, all Jews, scribes and Pharisees, though they were fleshly descendants from Abraham they still must experience this new birth to be saved/in the kingdom. None are exempt from this requirement. Those Jews in Acts 2 that obeyed Peter's command to be baptized were born again per Christ's requirement. Again, John showed a spiritual change must take place for just trusting in their descent from Abraham would not save them. (Matthew 3:9)

John 3:8 "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
When one is water baptized, that can be seen with the eyes. But what cannot be seen with the eyes when one is water baptized is the spiritual part in the remitting of sins, (Acts 2:38) the cutting away the body of sin-circumcision without hands (Colossians 2:11-12) the cleaning of the conscience (1 Peter 3:21). Like the wind that cannot be seen, these spiritual powerful events that takes place in water baptism are not seen.

=============

The Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius had nothing to do with his personal salvation, dealt with that in my last post. Acts 11:14 Cornelius would be saved "by words" of the gospel and his obedience to those words. Peter would tell Cornelius what he ought to do (Acts 10:6) Peter commanded him to be water baptized. Thereby Gentiles were saved in the like manner way as the Jews in Acts 2
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
One of the gifts we're exhorted to aspire to is the gift of prophecy. And as we gain that proficiency, we should probably start with understanding Prophetic Scripture. So do you have any grasp of end-time prophecies, -- or are you still drinking "milk", as evidenced in this TOPIC, as though it were somehow a LIFE ACHIEVEMENT?!?

Bobby Jo
Miracles ceased around the end of the first century, 1 Cor 13; Eph 4. The purpose of miracles was to being about the perfect (complete) word of God, confirmation that word which all happened by the end of the 1st century. Therefore miracles served their purpose and ceased.

There will be no premillennial reign of Christ.
 

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
AT Robertson doesn't sound unsure to me. In regards to Matthew 26:28, he states - The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in Hebrews 20:28. There anti and here peri. Unto remission of sins (ei apesin amartiwn). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins.

Matthew 26:28 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

In regards to Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus said, "This is my body when He took the bread." When He took the cup, He said, "This is my blood." Of course, His body was still His body and His blood was still in His body. He was attributing the reality to the emblem, yet the emblem is not the reality. When a believer is water baptized, sins are not washed away literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. Since it's not possible for an external ordinance to do an internal work on the heart, baptism can not do these things in a literal sense, yet it represents the remission of sins by the death of Christ, which was the real remission (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:22-28). Christ put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself. In experience, the remission of sins comes to us through faith in Christ (Acts 26:18; Romans 3:24-26) and "remission of sins" has three applications: Literally, by the sacrificial death of Christ - Matthew 26:28, experientially, by faith in Christ - Acts 10:43; 26:18 and ceremonially, by water baptism - Acts 2:38; 22:16.

Just because Robertson said that "one will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not" doesn't mean that he was confused or uncertain. Robertson understands that scripture must harmonize with scripture, but you don't seem to care that your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 is in contradiction to other passages of scripture, so it's you who lets his personal theology override inspiration. The only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony* :)

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). 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.”
.

Robertson's bias was clearly on display. Again, he had no problem at all understanding 'eis' means 'for' in Matthew 26:28. By changing "eis" to "because" in Mt 26:28 creates an impossibility (Hebrews 9:22). Yet when that same exact phrase (for remission 0f sin) in both the Greek and English appears in Acts 2:38 he cannot let it mean "for" for that goes against his personal bias. There is NOTHING in the Greek, in the English in grammar or in the context that "eis" means anything but "for" in both Mt 26:28 and Acts 2:38. The ONLY thing therefore that would cause Robertson not change ACts 2:38 to differ from Mt 26:28 was his personal theological bias. There is even disagreement among Baptist Greek scholars over the Greek word 'eis'. Some are willing to sacrifice their Greek scholarship over this word as AT Robertson and Julius Mantey against those those not willing to sacrifice their Greek scholarship as Charles B. Williams.

Charles B. William's Translation (1950 Edition)

38 "Peter said to them, 'You must repent--and, as an expression of it, let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ--that you may have your sins forgiven; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Concerning the above translation, Professor J. R. Mantey, of the Department of New Testament Interpretation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, has stated: "We concluded that it (C. B. Williams Translation. L. W. M.) is the best translation of the New Testament in the English language."

Charles B. Williams has served as Dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. Professor Ray Summers, head of Department of New Testament, at the same institution, has written in reference to the Charles B. Williams Translation, "I commend it most heartily to all who desire to know the real message of the New Testament."

Translation of Acts 2:38 By Baptist Schools and Scholars - Martin


Well known Greek scholar Daniel Wallace:

In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages.

In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists several uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing!

Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.”

He references the position of J. R. Mantey, that “eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70. 1952. 129-30; 71. 1953. 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter.

When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370).

It is not that Prof. Wallace has come to the conviction that baptism is essential for salvation. No, he resorts to other manipulations to resist that conclusion.

He has, however, rebuffed a long-defended argument that eis means “because of.”

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"


Mantey was taken to the proverbial woodshed in his debate against Marcus.

++++++++++++++++++

Calvin Beisner's grammatical gymnastics to rewrite Acts 2:38 has been refuted many times over:

Scholarship On Acts 2:38

A Response to Calvin Beisner’s Explanation of Acts 2:38
A Further Response to Calvin Beisner

Answering a false interpretation of Acts 2:38
 

Enow

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2020
1,210
215
63
60
Hermitage
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John 3:7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." The "ye" refers to Nicodemus, all Jews, scribes and Pharisees, though they were fleshly descendants from Abraham they still must experience this new birth to be saved/in the kingdom. None are exempt from this requirement. Those Jews in Acts 2 that obeyed Peter's command to be baptized were born again per Christ's requirement. Again, John showed a spiritual change must take place for just trusting in their descent from Abraham would not save them. (Matthew 3:9)

John 3:8 "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
When one is water baptized, that can be seen with the eyes. But what cannot be seen with the eyes when one is water baptized is the spiritual part in the remitting of sins, (Acts 2:38) the cutting away the body of sin-circumcision without hands (Colossians 2:11-12) the cleaning of the conscience (1 Peter 3:21). Like the wind that cannot be seen, these spiritual powerful events that takes place in water baptism are not seen.

=============

The Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius had nothing to do with his personal salvation, dealt with that in my last post. Acts 11:14 Cornelius would be saved "by words" of the gospel and his obedience to those words. Peter would tell Cornelius what he ought to do (Acts 10:6) Peter commanded him to be water baptized. Thereby Gentiles were saved in the like manner way as the Jews in Acts 2

You should take time out and ask Jesus for confirmation that you are rightly dividing the word of truth because I am telling you, you are not.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
This is what happens when people study too much trying to prove to God, what good little children they are, not enough JEsus too much self.

The bible, the biggest wall between man and teh truth that is Jesus Christ, whe nwill men tun away from self and give themseves over to Him, who can save himself by his own work,

So much foolishness,
 

mailmandan

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2020
4,444
4,728
113
The Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is what happens when people study too much trying to prove to God, what good little children they are, not enough JEsus too much self.

The bible, the biggest wall between man and teh truth that is Jesus Christ, whe nwill men tun away from self and give themseves over to Him, who can save himself by his own work,

So much foolishness,
Amen! That salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9) is not hard to understand. It's just hard for works-salvationists to ACCEPT. It's a shame that human pride will not allow works-salvationists to trust in Jesus Christ alone as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. (John 3:15,16,18; 10:9; 14:6; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1 etc..) Their hands are full of their works and they will not let go in order to receive Christ through FAITH.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Notice the "are saved".. It is finished.