Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Baptism and Salvation

Forum Quick Jump

194 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 10/24/2001 3:38 PM (GMT -6)

Dear POW,

I would rather see an answer to the arguments I presented with scriptural backing for each point.

I understand, though, I had 6 children of my own.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/24/2001 5:23 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Dear POW, I would rather see an answer to the arguments I presented with scriptural backing for each point.

Still trying.

But why separate water Baptism and "Chrismation" (anointing with the Holy Spirit)? Why decide on one and excluding the other. What precident?

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 10/25/2001 7:03 PM (GMT -6)

POW,

Let's take one at a time.

Please respond with Scriptural passages to back up what you believe. I don't care what others believe. We can cut and paste whole theology books. I have a very large library.
So what. I want to see what you believe and why you believe it.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/26/2001 6:32 PM (GMT -6)

Pot: But why separate water Baptism and "Chrismation" (anointing with the Holy Spirit)? Why decide on one and excluding the other. What precedent?

Bob: POW, Let's take one at a time.

No, Bob. I'm asking to consider them together. it seems to me that what I've found interesting and respectful in what you've written may be a corrective in, perhaps, shining a light on the role of the Holy Spirit. Would seem a needed corrective compared to what has been at times. THAT is something I'd like to discuss with you. But as Lewis Smedes (a Reformed Calvinist)says in Union with Christ "to live in the Spirit and to live in Christ are the same thing." (p.43) I can't see separating them AT ALL!

Briefly, I feel that I have to address one more thing, before following Smedes a bit further....

You wrote: "Please respond with Scriptural passages to back up what you believe. I don't care what others believe. . .I want to see what you believe and why you believe it." I can easily get you to agree that: ". . .no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. . ." (2 Peter 1:19-21 )

quote:
19 So we have <*48> the prophetic word made more <*49> sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to <*50> a lamp shining in a dark place, until the <*51> day dawns and the <*52> morning star arises <*53> in your hearts.
20 But <*54> know this first of all, that <*55> no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for <*56> no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men <*57> moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

You can disagree with me if you wish, Bob. I won't try and force you. But I don't think that it is something up to me to try and decide what I, individually believe. In fact I think that that is one of the surest paths to error. Not long ago I spent MONTHS reading arguments between one PIPER and one BOYD in which both sides were making use of scripture, and disagreeing markedly. The Evangelical Covenenters have a saying: "Where is it written." The BGC wrote during the P&B debate about "soul competency."

I will lay out some scripture along side some statements about baptism. (I HAVE ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!) But I'm not trying to come up with my own private (and new?) version of the truth!!!

Back to Smedes and something about the Holy Spirit and Christ working together....

quote:
(p.33) Calvin interprets the Spirit as the bearer of Christ. But when he faces the identity of Christ with the Spirit, he stops short. In his comment on Paul's dramatic identification of the Lord and the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17), Calvin says that Paul "simply points our His [that is, the Spirit's] office." That is, the Spirit is identified with the risen Mediator on function, but not in being. Jesus is the Mediator, limited and confined in His humanity. Yet, He is united to us here on earth. That is, Christ is present, and it is in Spirit that He is present. The Spirit is the administrative assistant to Jesus Christ, distinct from Christ personally, yet subordinated wholly to him in function.

MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING IN THERE THAT YOU REALLY LIKE, BOB! -- I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU A SLOW-PITCH FOR YOU TO HIT HERE.

Smede mentions someone else (in a footnote) -- an Anglo-Catholic theologian named L. S. Thornton...

quote:
Thornton develops his doctrine of the Spirit in a way surprisingly similar to Calvin's. He calls the Holy Spirit the altar ego of Christ. . .indistinguishable in function; not identical in person. (The Common Life in the Body of Christ, Westminster, 1946)

PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE SOME OF THIS, TO FIT YOUR VIEW?

I'm hoping that you will talk a bit about what you see as the advantages of your position.

. . .

As to verses from me. I'll post one now.

PotOnWheel

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/26/2001 7:23 PM (GMT -6)

Bob, an apology I just read your 10/22/2001:11:55:58PM post.

It appeared to NOT be addressed to me, but rather to the person asking the "good question to which you responded: "POW, While I have been waiting, I was asked a good question: “Why did Paul baptize Crispus and Gaius. . ." Was that post addressed to me???????

In it you layed out a lot of your position. I no longer feel so in the dark about where you are coming from.

(I will gather my notes and answer what you have posted at the top of this page.)

First, however, there are those "verses" which I want to re-post....since you didn't respond to them before, but merely said I hadn't posted any. These are three verses to start with.

1. For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal 3:27).

2. (speaking of Christ) "...having cleansed her by the washing of water and the word." (Eph 5:26)

3. "There are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water and the blood; and these three are in agreement." (1 John 5:8)

. . .

On another note....

We seem to REALLY disagree on the matter of "spiritual" (dualistic, maybe neo-platonic?) versus wholistic. Here is a you-said/I-said:

Yours:

quote:
Now there is only one program. It has to do with spiritual things, not carnal. So, today there is one baptism. We, who have trusted in Christ, are baptized into the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ’s body. That baptism identifies us with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8). Water baptism has been set aside. . .

Mine:

quote:
I have to admit that I was surprised to read that "baptism" is now only a "Spirit" thing and not physical. I might advance an objection that God created you and me as unities--which includes our bodies, hence Christ really died a physical death and rose physically, ascended physically, etc.

BOB, I'M SORRY FOR MUDDYING UP THE WATERS BY NOT PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT ONE POST. (It triped me up.) I SEE THAT YOU HAVE A COMPLEX, WORKED-OUT SYSTEM. I WILL TRY TO LAY OUT MY OBJECTIONS TO IT IN AN ORDERLY FASHION--AS SUCH DESERVES--ON ANOTHER POSTING .

PotOnWheel

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 10/27/2001 12:30:06 AM

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 10/26/2001 9:32 PM (GMT -6)

POW,

In Gal 3:27 and Rom 6:3-6, we who believe are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ according to 1 Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Rom 6:3-6 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

In Eph 5:25-27, Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.Paul used the illustration of a laver of water. The text says it was the word. Actually, it was by the word. If you believe this is baptismal regeneration, that would be against the gospel that Paul preached. He wrote in his earlier epistle to the Corinthians, in 1 Co 1:17 that he was not sent to baptize. That was in a setting of disputes in the Corinthian church.
1 Co 1:17: For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Paul used the same metaphor in Tit 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Here, the laver is regeneration.

In 1 Jo 5:8 5:7-11 There are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood and these three agree unto one thing. 9 . . . . because this is the witness of God which He has witnessed concerning His Son . . . . 11 And this is the witness: that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.John baptized Jesus when He was about 30 years old (Lk 3:23), possibly for His priesthood. He explained why he baptized Christ. It was to reveal to Israel that Jesus was the Messiah: “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water” John 1:31. John preached a baptism for the remission of sins (Mat 3:1-6; Lk 3:3,8). John’s ministry was to bring “knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins to His people,” Israel Lk 1:76,77. This baptism was for the sins of the world. That’s why Christ told John, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” Mat 3:15. Christ was also baptized with the Spirit (John 1:33). However, the most important baptism was His death baptism.
Lk 12:50 “But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!”These three baptisms witnessed to Christ’s provision of eternal life by water baptism, Spirit baptism, and blood, death baptism, according to verse 1 John 5:11.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/27/2001 3:47 AM (GMT -6)

I'm not a regular on this thread, so forgive me if my question/points have already been addressed. These five questions are for Bob.

1. I'm wondering what you do with Matt 28:19. Go and make disciples of all nations... baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

2. 12 or 13 years ago I did research on the phrase "for the remission of sin" (Published in Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity) and found that "for" (eis) did not ordinarily mean "to cause" or "produce" in Jewish thought, but "with a view toward." The Jews would be ceremonially washed "for" a number of things (often spoken in a threefold manner) -- e.g. the glory of Israel, the glory of God, the wisdom of Rabbi Shivat). So I don't see why we should assume that Peter meant to say "be baptized to cause the remission of sins."

3. You're exegesis seems to hang on the assumption that there is a direct connection between Jewish ceremonial washings and baptism. This may be so, but the connection is disputed by scholars.

4. Your exegesis seems to rely heavily on an argument from silence. That is, since Paul doesn't mention baptism as part of his ministry, he didn't believe baptism was necessary any longer. He does tell us that he wasn't called to baptize people (I Cor. 1), but that's not the same as saying that it was revealed to him that water baptism was no longer to be practiced in the Church. Rather, he seems to assume that baptism IS to be practiced in the Church. So, for example, he askes the Corinthians, "Into what name were you all baptized...?" (I Cor. 1). Similarly, in Rom. 6 he appeals to the Romans baptism to teach them about their identity in Christ.

5. If you believe baptism was necessary for salvation before Paul, what do you do with the theif on the cross? Also, do you think all non-Jews who weren't baptized (including several heros of the faith in Heb 11) were damned?

Just wondering
peace

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/27/2001 4:46 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the verses, Bob.

Since you are firm on seeing certain things in these verses, and expecting them to be read certain ways, I don't expect to convince you of anything. The first several verses are beautifully fit for the traditional view where matter and spirit are not felt to be so separate.

Where we stand in history we react to the phrase "baptismal regeneration". Our historical memory is that of an external that was also subjected to external authorities--saleable even! The Reformations reaction are our reactions. (Roman Catholicism overemphasis on the "real" at the expense of the "symbolic" in the sacraments, reacting against one extreme, but swinging to the another.

The Reformations also reacted. For us, the sense of the sacraments which the writers of scripture knew is hard to recapture. (Calvin simply said that he could not reason it out--as Rome did--but merely was left to value them and to just enjoy them.)

The historic churches did not tend to divide matter and spirit. our own history tangles us into trying to make a decision that they never tried to make. What gives us a challenge now is top see matter as being important. (We are almost cripto-Gnostic.) Fearing that matter will get in the way we would like it to politely excuse itself. It gets in the way for the kind of categories we want to think about the Gospel in. But the offense of the Gospel, that we all to quickly forget, is that God became God-matter for us, and redeemed matter.

Let me give an example. You won't understand these verses that you've posted unless you can have the same view of sacramentality that the authors had.

When John came preaching against the Temple hierarchies, when God sent him to do virtually temple ceremony out int he wilderness His foes (John's and God's) were doing virtually what you RIGHTLY react to--and the Reformers too--in an externalization. John preaches a BOTH-AND with respect to internal and external. (I trust that you do to--even if your sacrament seems to only involve the internal.....I can only guess.) The Temple had been reduced to some extent, by some, to an external. But John did not preach just an internal. Don't take what I'm saying dispensationally. John was a prophet, Elijah even. His witness was the finale--here was the Christ. Christ was God-made-man. You are right that (I like to say it with Christ's words) Christ asked to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness." He got baptized not, of course, because He personally needed it (he had no sin). But as a priest -- THE High Priest. His ministry was witnessed to by John this way: "The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." If one tries to SEPARATE all the salvific things Christ did for us one distorts them a bit. The Cross is paramount!!! But the things Christ "suffered" are all through the Gospels. He was, as I think you said, baptized for us too. But that is ALL PART OF the entire plan of salvation.

Well, I don't know how much of this is acceptable to the Dispensationalist tradition.

Sop, here is a response to some of your verses.
(THANKS FOR RESPONDING TO MINE!

)

quote:
In Gal 3:27 and Rom 6:3-6, we who believe are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ according to 1 Cor. 12:13 "for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."

"...we who believe are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ" For sure. But the Trinity always work together. The Spirit and the Son are sometimes referred to as the right and left hands of the Father. The Spirit ministers Christ to us. As Smedes says in Union with Christ "to live in the Spirit and to live in Christ are the same thing." and "the Spirit is identified with the risen Mediator on function, but not in being. Jesus is the Mediator, limited and confined in His humanity. Yet, He is united to us here on earth. That is, Christ is present, and it is in Spirit that He is present. The Spirit is the administrative assistant to Jesus Christ, distinct from Christ personally, yet subordinated wholly to him in function."

quote:
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Rom 6:3-6 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

These verses are, of course, wonderful: 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

In baptism (a sacrament that OF COURSE involves more than only matter!) we are identified with Christ's death and resurrection. His death and resurrection become our own. The contemporary quote immediately below (by an Eastern Orthodox bishop) shows that God is not limited to the ritual--as of course if it not the ritual of the "works" that save!!! GOD SAVES!!! Christ is the mediator!!! But the Spirit uses the sacrament. (That is why it is called a sacrament

.)

Certainly God is able to save those who have never been baptized. But while God is not bound to the sacraments, we are bound to them. Timothy Ware, "The Orthodox Way", p.108-109)

quote:
In Eph 5:25-27, Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

//Paul used the illustration of a laver of water. The text says it was the word. Actually, it was by the word. If you believe this is baptismal regeneration, that would be against the gospel that Paul preached.

Well, you are right, the "illustration" is "cleanse her with the washing of water". So we have at core "Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her" Christ IS the word. He is the Word of the Father. So, as you say, "actually it was by the word."! our "baptismal regeneration" is being baptized into HIS death and resurrection. God is not bound to our physical exercises--but we are. Matter matters!

When Jesus was baptized -- he who "takes away the sins OF THE WORLD" ("...far as the curse is found" in the words of "joy to the World" --

quote:
He wrote in his earlier epistle to the Corinthians, in 1 Co 1:17 that he was not sent to baptize. That was in a setting of disputes in the Corinthian church.
1 Co 1:17: For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Are you really, actually suggesting that this text proves that Paul says not to baptize with water anymore??? Paul is not making point you want him to make. Oh brother!!! Using THAT particular verse is.....

Paul even says in the preceeding verse "I DID baptize the household of Stephanas." Far from upturning the sacrament of water baptism, that section jsut shows how Paul did not want to part of dividing ofer external pettiness

(The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife!!!)

But I like this...

quote:
Paul used the same metaphor in Tit 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Here, the laver is regeneration.

You say well: "He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Here, the laver is regeneration." ABSOLUTELY!!!

But then you go on...

quote:
In 1 Jo 5:8 5:7-11 There are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood and these three agree unto one thing. 9 . . . . because this is the witness of God which He has witnessed concerning His Son . . . . 11 And this is the witness: that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

//John baptized Jesus when He was about 30 years old (Lk 3:23), possibly for His priesthood. He explained why he baptized Christ. It was to reveal to Israel that Jesus was the Messiah: “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water” John 1:31. John preached a baptism for the remission of sins (Mat 3:1-6; Lk 3:3,8). John’s ministry was to bring “knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins to His people,” Israel Lk 1:76,77. This baptism was for the sins of the world. That’s why Christ told John, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” Mat 3:15. Christ was also baptized with the Spirit (John 1:33). However, the most important baptism was His death baptism.
Lk 12:50 “But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!” These three baptisms witnessed to Christ’s provision of eternal life by water baptism, Spirit baptism, and blood, death baptism, according to verse 1 John 5:11.

Here you list a list of three (3). But it is a tangled list.

These three baptisms:
............. water baptism,
............. Spirit baptism, and
............. blood, death baptism
and say that each "witness to Christ’s provision of eternal life."

My saying "tangle" is from the suggestion that Christ's death WITNESSES TO HIS PROVISION OF ETERNAL LIFE (sounds Gnostic!!!), rather than ACTUALLY being my salvation. For as Romans 4:25 says: "He was [ACTUALLY] delivered over to death for our sins and was [ACTUALLY] raised to life for our justification."!!!

I posted verses a while back that I beleive to have been written well after the point in history where you say that water baptism ceased. And they showed the ongoing use of the sacrament. And of course the sacrament of water baptism continued, and continues.

Water baptism makes us participants in Christ's death and resurrection. God is not limited to uses of matter. But we are matter. (It is a false, unnecessary choice to have to choose between water baptism and regeneration; to say that using matter means belief that the matter itself saves.) Paul's very reference to Baptism shows that that is the ongoing practice of the church.

PAX

PotOnWheel

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 10/27/2001 10:36:18 AM

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 10/27/2001 10:44 AM (GMT -6)

Doc - [:)] Greetings, and many blessings. I am very new to this forum. I am very much a supporter of open theism. But, I am affiliated with the theology of Bob Hill. I am replying to your post to Bob, I am certain he will present the more thorough and hard Biblical evidence and additional reasoning.

1 - That was the marching orders for the kingdom believers, for the circumcision, God hadn't changed those marching orders (for us in the Body of Christ) until after He raised up Paul, the apostle to those in the body of Christ. God has made other in kind remarks that only apply to Israel, a national people who is cut off from God during this dispensation of grace. Compare how that so called great commission sits in with
The Kingdom proclaimed (Matt 10:5-7) to the Hebrew nation alone,
the Kingdom offered (Acts 1:8) to all nations beginning with Israel,
and the Kingdom postponed (2Cor 5:19) to all without distinction.

Your reference is back in the days of pre-cut off Israel the (people of the) circumcision. We are grafted in, they have been pruned out, God made this separation, and it remains true today, it was written to and for us, those of the uncircumcision.

2 - I believe the Biblical evidence is that water baptism "was for a time" part of the formula for salvation, the larger more prominent formula in that dispensation was to obey His commandments, and the most fundamental rule for salvation is to obey God's requirements for salvation, whatever they may be. Water baptism was part of what was preached for salvation, and was illustrated by our Lord's baptism, i.e. H.S. comes into the person upon completing this rite (after the day of Pentecost, a manifest ingredient of salvation). Also, the various consistent phrasings according to:

quote:
Mr 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

seem to be quite clear that salvation involved the physical rite of water baptism. And as Bob Hill said from Peter

quote:
1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us----baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

or

ASV which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism
RSV Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,
Green's LIT Which figure now also saves us, baptism

These passages show the necessity of baptism. Also, this necessity is taught accordingly:

quote:
Ac 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Early on, Paul naturally considered water baptism was part of salvation (gradual revelation), he had baptized several, but his account is placed in a request of need/necessity, what must I do to be saved, part of that answer was baptism. And even though Paul would later change the kind of baptism necessary, none the less, baptism was necessary for salvation. So while I am glad to see you disagree with those who teach water baptism as a necessary ingredient for salvation, I believe that it had been part of salvation, and perhaps will again be part of salvation when this dispensation ends, and the last one resumes.

3 - Jesus, John the baptist, Peter, even Paul(!), so many examples (and with so much consistency) demonstrated the truth of the necessity of baptism for salvation. The only reason I say "so many" and "so much" is because of other passages that do not necessarily teach water baptism for salvation, these are highlighted in your questions 4, and 5.

4 -

quote:
Your exegesis seems to rely heavily on an argument from silence. That is, since Paul doesn't mention baptism as part of his ministry, he didn't believe baptism was necessary any longer. He does tell us that he wasn't called to baptize people (I Cor. 1), but that's not the same as saying that it was revealed to him that water baptism was no longer to be practiced in the Church. Rather, he seems to assume that baptism IS to be practiced in the Church.

Paul did not speak about baptism with so much silence, I believe he was very clear about the nature of our current baptism. There is one baptism, one spirit, etc. Paul's baptism was exclusive.

5 - Personally, this question will be the most interesting to hear Bob's response over. It is my estimation that this is a great opportunity to understand just how it was that God expected man to obey Him in the dispensation of law. But first to directly answer your question, God has always saved people by His grace, salvation it's self has never rested upon man's obedience, only man's response to God gift of salvation is man's responsibility. Man meeting that response favorable is not considered earning salvation. More specifically, in the dispensation of the law, man did NOT have to perfectly obey all of God's commandments, that is an impossibility anyway. God required all that you could do and obey.

I believe that the thief was saved without baptism because he fulfilled the requirements of the law to the best of his ability, he loved God (believed in Him), and he loved his fellow man as himself, on those two teachings hang the entire law, and helps us understand the practicality of man's ability and God's expectation of man obey God's commandments for salvation (in the dispensation of law, not Grace). Prior to the rite of baptism, God required salvation by obeying the commandments, again, it was not perfection that God required, it was God's requirement for people to place themselves under His commandments and to obey them as much as they had it within themselves to do. Example, in the wilderness, they didn't circumcise, in their captivity, they couldn't put to death the foreigner within their land who broke God's commandments, they didn't have governmental jurisdiction to do so, and God did not hold such things against them. God is consistent and holds people accountable for what they are responsible for, He does not hold people accountable for things they are incapable of doing, like the thief getting baptized.

It also helps us understand the difficult aspect of faith, such as SIDS, abortion, and so on. God only holds us accountable for what we can be held responsible for. I believe that God's love is so profound and pronounced in all His creation, that God even understands unborn babies in a fundamental or spiritual sense that He can either judge their response to him, or perhaps God will "somehow" allow them the capacity to make their own mature free will response to Him. God is a just God full of mercy and repents from doing harm, all His ways are loving and just, so the thief was saved consistent with the teachings within the dispensation of the law, same as others like Nineveh and those you mentioned.

I would stop here, but I'd rather get this last part out of the way as I except Bob and your self will have plenty to talk about.

Continuing with the idea that God changed the requirements for salvation.

God particularly said "to have eternal life, you must"

obey the commandments

love God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength

and love your neighbor as yourself

A common retort is that whenever God said such things, He was somehow being fascicious, in that man can not perfectly obey and love God and His commandments, therefore they reason that it has always been the better understanding that salvation is truthfully by faith alone, and not of works, again, because of man's supposed inability to obey the works part. There are passages that directly deny such a position.

quote:
King Josiah, King Hezikiah and the Etheopian eunuch were real life examples of errant imperfect human's turning to and believing God with all their heart! The Bible affirms they both gave their all to God. So we can assume that this injunction for obedience even unto God's commandments with all our heart (etc) was one of capability. Please see link below for the fuller list of passages in view. I believe the context demonstrates that obeying God and His commandments is a statement of enduring commitment, to not turn back from God, to steadfastly seek and love and obey Him. It was Jesus' most succinct explanation for salvation, and He was consistent in it.
quote:
Mt 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Lu 10:25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" 27 So he answered and said," `You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and `your neighbor as yourself.'" 28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
The teaching is a relationship of manifest ability, God was truthful and not deceptive when He repeatedly said it, even for salvation.

If you want to see the full list of Biblical references implied, you can see them at

http://www.theologyonline.com (SCRATCH, old thread, long gone, sorry)
It's the second post.

Please forgive me if you don't hold the position (common retort) I exposed and opposed, however, this discussion is relevant because of the fuller explanation of what "12 out" implies. (in a few words, means the 12 are not part of the body of Christ, they are of the circumcision, the kingdom believers who's dispensation died with them. 1Cor 7:17,18) Bob (and I) believes that the requirements for salvation changed with the new dispensation of Grace given to Paul to give to us. The differences between the circumcision and the uncircumcision are that significant. Part of the change was that before the dispensation of Grace, God used to require "works plus faith" for salvation, but now requires "faith and no works".

Looking forward to Bob's reply, and your responses. I indirectly inherited much of what I said from him. He is far more studied and capable than I am.

Blessings,
1way

Edited by - 1way on 10/27/2001 4:37:24 PM
Edited by - 1way on 10/27/2001 4:37:24 PM

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 10/27/2001 11:42 AM (GMT -6)

Dear Doc,

I use a term of endearment because of the influence your book, God at War had on my theology. I’m looking forward to reading your new one.

I will attempt to answer your questions by giving a comprehensive answer as though you have read none of my posts on baptism.

I have to start at the beginning of the gospel, “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:1), the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Mat 1:1). I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ was the long awaited good news which specially belonged to the circumcision, Israel. What is the good news of the circumcision? The Messiah has come! The kingdom will be restored to Israel.All the promises have potential fulfillment in Christ. When Christ was born, the angel announced, “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:32,33).Right from the start of John’s ministry, this “kingdom of God has been preached” (Lk 16:16). What kingdom? It was the kingdom promised to David in 2 Sa 7:12-16.John’s father was inspired to say in Luke 1:68,69,72-77, “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people, 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David . . . 72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, 73 the oath which He swore to our father Abraham: [The seed promise.] 74 to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. 76 And you, child . . . will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, 77 to give knowledge of salvation to His people by the remission of their sins.

The Davidic promise is the essence of the kingdom which will be established by God. I believe it is referred to as the kingdom of God because He will establish it. The people were expecting the Messiah and His kingdom (Lk 3:15). The kingdom was at hand because the King was present. John’s commission was to “prepare the way of the Lord” (Lk 3:4) and help all flesh to see God’s salvation (Lk 3:6). The kingdom promises would be fulfilled by the one heralded by John. Even just shortly before His Ascension, the apostles were expecting the Davidic kingdom to be restored to Israel. Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

John’s ministry centered around the baptism of repentance. He was calling the nation back into the covenant relationship with God which they had forsaken. He was basing his message on the principles of repentance contained in Jeremiah 18 and Ezekiel 18. He was preparing them to be a kingdom of priests. Apparently, the whole nation would be priests not just the Levites (Ex 19:6; Isa 61:6).

The gospel of the circumcision had the solid undergirding of the covenant of circumcision. The conditional characteristics of the gospel rested firmly upon the similar conditions of the covenant (Lk 3:11,13,14).

Later, James would write the same kind of conditions that John expressed in Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:19, “and even now the ax is laid to the root of the tree. Therefore every tree which does not bear fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” “Faith without works is dead” (Jam 2:14-24). Christ also made a conditional statement in John 15:1-6.

The baptism John preached was for their purification. This act of obedience resulted in the remission of their sins. Not all took part, for “the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves” (Lk 7:30). Of those who took part, we find that many of them did not continue in their obedience. Instead, they crucified their Messiah. Later, even John had doubts that Jesus was the Messiah, but Christ reassured him by referring to the acts which attested to the establishment of the kingdom which had been promised to David (Lk 7:18-28; Isa 35:1-10). In Mk 1:14,15 it says, “After John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’”.

Christ’s ministry was only to Israel (Mat 15:24). As He proclaimed the nearness of the kingdom, He confirmed His ministry by healing the sick. These miracles were the signs that Isaiah prophesied would accompany the kingdom (Isa 35:1-10). This is why Paul referred to Him as a “minister of circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8). Were these the only promises to be confirmed? No, I believe all the covenant promises were to be confirmed but especially those made to Abraham and David. When His birth was announced, His royal commission was emphasized: “He will be great . . . and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:32,33).Christ’s message was the gospel of the circumcision calling the nation back to the covenant relationship with God (Lk 1:72; Act 3:25,26). The conditional components are clearly evident in His proclamation (Mat 5:44,45; 7:21). Repentance is also greatly emphasized in His message (Mat 4:17). The Beatitudes, for example, are weighty with conditional thoughts. Following the model prayer He says, “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Mat 6:14,15). Notice, their forgiveness was dependent upon their act of forgiving. Remember, this was spoken while He was teaching His disciples (Mat 5:1,2). In the later commissioning of the Twelve (Mat 10:22) and the Olivet discourse, we find the conditional statement, “But he who endures to the end shall be saved” (Mat 10:22; 24:13). Consider also the conditions in the parable of the sower. Notice the teaching about the one who received the word “but endures only for a while,” or “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word” (Mat 13:21,22). The principle was, “if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mat 19:17). Of course, this would have to be done by faith (Rom 9:30-32). I think this clearly shows that it was necessary to keep the covenant of law to remain in the vital covenant relationship which would ultimately result in salvation.

The Lord develops the principles of the gospel of the circumcision, and we see the concept of endurance expanded. Our Lord thoroughly developed this in John’s gospel. John developed these endurance concepts in his first two epistles and Revelation.

The principle was interestingly demonstrated in John chapter eight. Christ explained to the Jews who He was, who His Father was, and the importance of belief. He said, “If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (8:24). John’s inspired observation of the results of this discourse is, “As He spoke these words, many believed in Him” (8:30). Now we see the principle of endurance or continuance, an important part of the covenant of circumcision and its gospel. Now, notice very carefully to whom Christ spoke, “to those Jews who believed Him” (31). The words, “who believed,” are a perfect participle and its definite article. In Greek this means something happened in the past and has consequences for the present. These Jews who believed (aorist indicative), are now believers. They are now in the process of salvation. Now another important point is made. In order to stay in this relationship they must remain or continue in His word. This is the same kind of statement that Christ makes to His eleven apostles in John 15. If they do not remain in His word, they will not remain in belief and will fall from their covenant relationship. Here is how Christ expressed it: “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31,32). But there is an immediate sense of rebellion, and eventually these believers lose their faith and seek to kill Him (37). Were they really saved? Yes! John was inspired to write that they believed and were believers (30,31). But they did not do what Christ told them to do. Therefore, they became unbelievers (45). Can we be sure He was speaking to the same ones who were called believers? If you read 31-33, I think you will see that He, indeed, was talking to the believers. After they became unbelievers because the did not “abide in (His) word,” they attributed His statements to demon possession (48,52). Finally, they tried to stone Him (59). All of this is extremely interesting. These people start out as believers but end up as those who desired to kill Him.These conditional concepts of abiding and enduring are explicitly illustrated in the fifteenth chapter of John. After Judas left (13:26-31), Christ spoke to the eleven (13:1,22,33,35). He said to them, “I am the vine, you are the branches” (15:5). Do we have any doubt who the branches are? They are the eleven apostles. Judas has left (13:30). “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away” (15:2). That is a strong statement. What does “He takes away” mean? The Greek word airw means “take away” or “take up.” It is found 98 times in the New Testament and means take away or something similar at least sixty times in the New Testament, and seventeen times in John’s gospel. Here it seems to mean that this person is taken out of that vital relationship with Christ necessary for salvation. We see this is not merely a pruning or lifting to a better place since the next statement is plainly about pruning. Next we see that they are clean, right now. In order to maintain that clean state, they must remain in Him and He in them (15:4). If any of these apostles does not remain in Him, “he is cast out as a branch and is withered, and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned” (15:6).

Next, He makes a third class conditional statement: “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you” (15:7). This is the same statement He made in John 8:31,32. If they do this, not only will they get what they desire, but Christ says, “so you will be My disciples” (15:8).Again, this is very similar to John 8:32. We see how the apostles would abide in His love, “If you keep My commandments” (15:10). He continues making conditional statements. I want to put the protasis first in verse fourteen, where it logically goes in English, to emphasize what He is saying. “If you do what I command you, you are my friends.” From this, we can make one strong conclusion. Faith-works were essential for salvation under the dispensation of circumcision.

What eschatological promises are made by Christ under the dispensation of circumcision? To begin with, the Twelve were promised thrones and the right to judge Israel. Others will receive “a hundredfold, and inherit everlasting life” (Mat 19:28,29). But even these promises are conditional.

The Twelve must first follow Christ (19:28). The others will have to leave “houses or brothers or sister or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake.” Their hope is the resurrection and second coming with its deliverance after the tribulation when the kingdom is restored to Israel (Acts 1:6).

The kingdom message is very important in Christ’s ministry because of the promises made to David. The kingdom, as prophesied, will be a time of Israelite supremacy (Mat 8:11,12). Those who do not maintain their covenant relationship with God will be cut off from the kingdom and cast into outer darkness (Mat 8:12). I think these are the same who will have the kingdom taken from them and given to the nation which will bear fruit. This nation is the little flock (Lk 12:32), Israel in true covenant relationship with God (1 Pet 2:9). When this happens, it will be the fulfillment of Daniel 7:27, “Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.

The gospel of the circumcision had its basis in the covenant of circumcision. The apostles of the circumcision were acutely aware of its requirements (Gen 17:10-14). They would not go against God’s covenant (Act 10:28). Their ministry before the body of Christ began, with the salvation of Paul, seems to have been to their brothers (Isa 66:18-23; Mat 10:5-15; 28:18-20 with Act 10:28 in view).

They certainly had the Davidic kingdom in mind (Act 1:6). The gospel of the kingdom for them seems to be the good news that the long promised Davidic kingdom would be established. The time of their trouble was near. Their marching orders had been given: “Go therefore” (Mat 28:19); and, “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come” (Mat 24:14).

Baptism was essential for salvation under the Baptist’s and Christ’s ministries:Lk 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Mk 16:15,16 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. It also was essential under the ministry of the twelve (Act 2:38).

Even after the body of Christ began with the salvation of Paul, we see that water baptism still saves the covenant people (1 Pe 3:20,21). Of course, we have no record of a circumcision apostle evangelizing after Cornelius was saved. The only activity we read about in the Bible concerning the circumcision apostles is their written ministry. This was extremely important because their epistles were preparing the covenant people for their prophesied time of trouble.

To whom was John the Baptist sent? It says in John 1:31 that John was sent to Israel: “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” John came to Israel to show that Jesus was the Messiah or Christ. It was at a time when God was only dealing with the Jews. The method of salvation was repent and be baptized for your sins. This was the message of the kingdom gospel. Luke 16:16 shows when the kingdom gospel started: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.”

Did Christ and the apostles preach the same gospel that John preached? Yes, for it says that they did (Mat 10:5-10 and Mark 1:14,15). Now, notice the context. Baptism was linked with the message of the kingdom promised to David. This was the good news of the circumcision (Gal 2:7-9).

When John began his ministry there was only one baptism, water. Was it necessary for salvation? Yes. We even find Jesus saying to Nicodemus in John 3:5 that if a man wants to enter into the kingdom of God, he must be born of water and of the Spirit. This requirement of water baptism fits the historical setting of John’s message. John began baptizing. The apostles continued baptizing after the resurrection and the day of Pentecost. Christ commanded the Eleven in Mark 16:15-16, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Peter insisted on the same requirement ten days later on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Here we see that water baptism was necessary before Holy Spirit baptism would take place. So now, at Pentecost, for the first time, we have two baptisms. Water baptism was necessary for salvation. Then, Holy Spirit baptism took place. From the context of verses 22 and 39 we see that this happened while God was still dealing with Israel. Peter was only speaking to Israel in 22, and he was referring to the promise made to Israel in 39.

Next, something very important happens. The Apostle Paul is saved. I will not go into the differences in Paul’s salvation, although it appears that Paul was saved under the same message Peter preached in Acts 2. Acts 22:16 says, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Since God had started a new dispensation with Paul (Gal 1:11-2:9; Eph 3:1-9), all kinds of different things began to happen.

Peter got a vision in Acts 10 which showed that Israel had been set aside. They were no longer God’s special people. This was shown by the vision given to Peter when the law of clean and unclean animals was set aside (Lev 20:24-26).

Peter was sent to a Gentile and was told by the Holy Spirit to doubt nothing (Acts 10:20).

The most significant event happened when Peter went to the Gentiles. When they believed, the Holy Spirit interrupted Peter’s message before he could tell them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. In fact, the Holy Spirit fell on all the Gentiles while Peter was still preaching. The Jews who accompanied Peter were amazed. This, indeed, was a dispensational sign from God that something had changed.

What had changed? God had started a new program when He saved Paul. However, since God would only reveal the new message to the Apostle Paul, Peter was still preaching the same message he had always preached, faith plus works: Acts 10:34-43 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people [Israel], and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” Then, the Holy spirit interrupted him before he could command them to be baptized for the remission of their sins.

So, the situation at this point of our investigation is:

At first there was only one baptism, John’s. It was necessary for salvation.

Then things started changing when Paul was saved.

The Holy Spirit fell on Gentiles before they were water baptized. Remember, water baptism was a sign to Jews to show Christ to them.

Sometime during his second missionary journey the Apostle Paul told the body of Christ about the baptisms which they knew of, in this manner: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius . . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Co 1:14,17 Read in context.). From this we see that Paul was not under the great commission which was given to the circumcision apostles.

In the same epistle, he wrote, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body; whether Jews or Greeks” (1 Co 12:13). So, water baptism had changed from being the only baptism, and necessary for salvation, to a ritual which had faded away.

Next, another very important incident happened. God finished showing Israel that they had been set aside. He had done this in a progressive manner which reached its conclusion in Acts 28:28. It started in Acts 13:46, continued in Acts 18:6, and was concluded in Acts 28:28.

After Israel had been shown that they had been set aside, Paul was inspired by God to write Ephesians. In Ephesians 4:3-6, Paul wrote about the unity of the Spirit. He was writing about God’s dealings with Christians in this dispensation of grace. He wrote, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, two baptisms.” No, It doesn’t say two baptisms! It says there “is one baptism”. Yes, one baptism. Which one is it then? It must be Spirit baptism since the Holy Spirit is still sealing members into the body of Christ.

Well then, I think we can see that the gospel message started out with one baptism, water. This was necessary for salvation. It progressed to two: water first, then, Holy Spirit baptism. The water baptism was still necessary for salvation. Finally, in this dispensation, it returned to one, Holy Spirit, which is now necessary for salvation. After the rapture of the body of Christ, the circumcision gospel will be in place again. Water baptism will become necessary for salvation again as shown in 1 Pe 3:18-22.

In His love,
Bob

Pat_Iverson
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 4

Posted 10/27/2001 1:55 PM (GMT -6)

This is for Geej ... back to the topic of Church of Christers ... whose Bible Study is how this topic of discussion was originally started :::::
Geeg: Do you still go to this study? I am a pastor's wife in Montana. We had Church of Christers be a part of our fellowship for seven years and the result was pretty divisive. Ask your friends about the preferred type of communion bread. THAT should lead to a huge teaching about the use of unleavened bread and how non-Christian it is to use that ... awful ... leavened stuff! Sorry ... I'm just a little sarcastic about it, and I know this is a little off the topic. If you want to ask, though, it would be interesting to see what is said!

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/27/2001 2:32 PM (GMT -6)

Bob and followers,

Several questions:
1. WHY think that all these proof-texting connect-the-dots schemes are how God intended us to read the Bible in the first place? I know you think the church went apostate almost from the get go, which in itself is an unbiblical notion, but why think all this time, God was just waiting for the Enlightenment to happen so some highly linear rationalists could sort through all the propositions found in the Bible and make them fit together? I mean, what was supposed to happen in the meantime? I know this is in a sarcastic tone, but I am asking a serious question. I am truly dombfounded at this sort of strategy. You do realize of course that the whole concept of the "literal meaning of the text" as we know it didn't emerge until after the Reformation. Prior to that, multiple meanings to each given text was ASSUMED. That would significantly complicate the dot patterns.

2. Why can't we get a straight answer to a straight question? You dive into a barrage of pasages with commentary along the way, but surely someone has mapped this all out so we can have the advantage of seeing the big picture time line. Where's that? I'm just curious. It seriously seems like all this is worked out somewhere and you are just cutting and pasting huge chunks of stuff each time a question comes up. If we are going to play connect-the-dots at least connect the answer simply to the question.

3. The principle problem that comes out of this sort of strategy is that functions as a new sort of gnosticism. There are now people who have the "interpretive key" who understand God's plan throughout history and accepting the deal is all or nothing, or so it seems. Jesus should have warned us that we'd have to work so hard to get the details right. Instead, it seemed like he was content to work toward reconciliation, healing and lead a spiritual revolt. Paul too let's us down in warning us of the massively complicated system we are to be developing, instead he tells us that he knew nothing but Christ and him crucified! (1 Cor. 2)

4. Back to biblical interpretation. It sounds like you reject historical-critical approaches out of hand. You make many assumptions about authorship and so forth that reveal low awareness or at little attention to the messy stuff. The level of clarity with which you put all these things together like ducks in a row is simply not warranted.

5. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I need to be shown WHY this sort of interpretive strategy should be taken seriously in the first place. From what I have seen, dispensationalists split hairs two and three times until all the peices are small enough to fit in the puzzle without too much force having to be applied. This seems a questionable enterprise from the start.

6. I remember back when it was enough to accept Christ into my heart and love the Lord. Romans 8 meant that I was not to endure condemnation because of Christ' work on my behalf. I guess I'm just a simple guy wondering if the gospel is in fact simple enough for me.

Having said that, please understand, I do recognize the tremendous amount of work somebody had to do to work out all of these details, but before I and others lik me go to the trouble of tracing all that with our time and energy, these questions must be satisfied.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 10/27/2001 7:42 PM (GMT -6)

Modes of Thought,

I agree with you when you said: "I remember back when it was enough to accept Christ into my heart and love the Lord. Romans 8 meant that I was not to endure condemnation because of Christ' work on my behalf."

Here is what the gospel says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." It is that simple. I'm glad that we agree.

Bob Hill

Edited by - Bob Hill on 10/28/2001 12:43:58 AM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/28/2001 3:16 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Modes of Thought,

I agree with you when you said: "I remember back when it was enough to accept Christ into my heart and love the Lord. Romans 8 meant that I was not to endure condemnation because of Christ' work on my behalf."

Here is what the gospel says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." It is that simple. I'm glad that we agree.

Bob Hill

Edited by - Bob Hill on 10/28/2001 12:43:58 AM

Very glad to hear it. Genuinely.

I do think that the other questions that I asked, the methodological ones, need to be addressed if you expect me to take the eloborate system you propose seriously.

I appreciate your concise response above and hope for more like it.

Blessings.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

geej
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 10/28/2001 6:14 AM (GMT -6)

Pat
It took awhile but I have scammed my way out of the group by feining going to obedience classes (yes, I am a chicken). It was funny (not haha but weird) but I felt guilty about not going.

However, I will ask my friend about their form of bread-taking.
I can see how they would be divisive in a church. Those that I know are so...single tracked or stubborn. They had an answer for everything and every argument I could come up with. The men, particularly the pastor, were so arrogant that they were almost scarry. When you don't study theology every day (which I'd like to again..I miss it), their arguments were strong. You have to be on your toes. For me, coming from a fundamentalist, Independent Baptist circle, it was dangerous to be there. They were very similar to that and they (the fundamentalists, frighten me terribly...not good memories there).
To everyone else on this thread, I haven't said much lately because the discussion has been over my head a bit. I very much appreciate the continuation of the discussion because I am learning by watching.
Thank you for that.
GJ

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 10/29/2001 9:44 AM (GMT -6)

Modes

There is a very simple general Scriptural outline for the view that Bob Hill is espousing on this thread. What he is dealing with right now is the detail of baptism. Bob's take on baptism is a direct result of the general outline that he sees occurng in the New Testament.

Before this general outline is given though I have a question for you (and Greg or anyone else following this thread if they'd like to respond).

When you think of God's dealings with Israel in the New Testament do you see God as taking one fixed route or do you see God as having different routes available for Him to take based upon Israel's response to His word?

Bob believes that God had more than one route that He could take. That God had a plan A and a plan B that He could execute based upon the possible responses of Israel to His message. Do you agree with Bob here or do you believe that God had decided that He would go with one route regardless of how Israel responded to His message?

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 10/29/2001 2:48:50 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/29/2001 10:52 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Before this general outline is given though I have a question for you (and Greg or anyone else following this thread if they'd like to respond).

When you think of God's dealings with Israel in the New Testament do you see God as taking one fixed route or do you see God as having different routes available for Him to take based upon Israel's response to His word?

Bob believes that God had more than one route that He could take. That God had a plan A and a plan B that He could execute based upon the possible responses of Israel to His message. Do you agree with Bob here or do you believe that God had decided that He would go with one route regardless of how Israel responded to His message?

chance

Okay, I'll bite. But the question itself is bizzare to me. What am I doing trying to figure out how many possible routes God has for something? It seems to me that God has one promise to bless all people through the Abrahamic covenant. Christ is the fulfillment of that promise. We are ALL involved in that promise by virtue of the category, "all nations" (Gen. 12). Those who have faith in God's faithfulness are surely saved and reconciled, those who don't know, the work has still been done for them, but I cannot say with confidence what will happen (hence the Great Commission is an imperative statement of universal endurance until Christ returns), perhaps their conscience will bear witness (Romans 2). One plan, one savior, on promise, one salvation, one baptism, one Lord. Pretty simple plan. Paul himself seemed to have as many questions as answers with regard to Israel's fate in Romans, so I hope you are not headed there to sort all this out for us.

"There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is the Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:12-13)

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/29/2001 11:58 AM (GMT -6)

I'd like to have a discussion with Bob about the general broad-brush (I'm an artist) aspects "behind" what is behind all of our thoughts... Did that make sense? (But it is my fault in being brisk with him in our first exchange, for the trajectory of our disagreements!) But maybe I can squeeze some of that in here.

In particular, I disagree with the Dispensationalists multiplicity. Old and New Covenant are part of the same thing. God planned ALL of it "from before" everything created was. My old OT Prof. (A. Lewis, who did some translating on Judges and Ruth for the NIV) was a big influence on me in that way. That is why the Reformed folk were easy to fellowship with when I moved to a part of the country where "Baptist" meant GARB (no offense to any GARBs!)--and I simply called myself "post-Lutheran" (My pardon to all Lutherans!) I'm a-mil. I was delighted to find that E. Orthodox is too! (The Reformed and the E.O. ought to talk more!) So here is something about the non-multiplical view that I see in scripture, and in God's actions.

The whole of scripture goes together.

That said (and I'll let the eloquent detail it), there is something that I've read that seems to be fertile soil -- so I'll recommend it to others. The Orthodox tradition makes much of "the Law and the Prophets". Even in the Transfiguration the presence of Moses (law) and Elijah (Prophets) is developed. (Incidentally, they also can represent the "quick" and the "dead".) Part of the significance of the "Law and the Prophets" is how EACH respectively represents (or some other verb), in the order presented: history versus eschatology; and Christology versus Pneumatology.

Both of those dyads would be interesting, I think, to discuss with Bob. To my mind Bob's view of Baptism is so different as to be truly strange. BUT, I intuit that MAYBE some of the motivation behind it might at least "echo" the tension between the "Law" and the "Prophets" as represented wherever they are mentioned in the NT.

I came upon this sketch in Zizioulas' "Being as Communion" in some WONDERFUL chapters on, of all things, "ecclesiology." (Honest, it was GREAT reading!!! I'm not kidding!)

Zizioulas puts forth "Pneumatologically conditioned Christology." (Kind of like asking what the difference between red-orange and orange-red Crayola Crayons is--the second is the noun and the first is the modifying adjective--the Christology is modified by Pneumotological understandings! Hierarchies and the slavery of the Law are avoided. But I'm beginning to put my own words in... Ooops!)

So, echoing Modes...I'm for "one...pretty simple plan." But I recognize the presence of two things. We have history, and we have the transection of history by the incarnation. We have the Church present in history, and we have the Church/body of Christ united in/by/? the Holy Spirit which includes even those with the Lord and those not born yet ('cause what is time to God).

If Dispensationalists feel this tension, then I am WITH them.

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 10/29/2001 7:00 PM (GMT -6)

Dear Doc,

With my last post in mind, I think the history of water baptism in the Scriptures is vital to understanding its relationship to the covenant of circumcision. Then, we must see it’s relationship to us in the body of Christ.

We know that a number of baptisms are mentioned in the Old Testament. Num 19:9-21 shows that a water rite was necessary for salvation under the law: “Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin. 10 And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. It shall be a statute forever to the children of Israel and to the stranger who dwells among them. 11 He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days. 12 He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean. 13 Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD. That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him. 14 This is the law when a man dies in a tent: All who come into the tent and all who are in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, which has no cover fastened on it, is unclean. 16 Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by a sword or who has died, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. 17 And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running water shall be put on them in a vessel. 18 A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, the slain, the dead, or a grave. 19 The clean person shall sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water; and at evening he shall be clean. 20 But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from among the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. The water of purification has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean. 21 It shall be a perpetual statute for them. He who sprinkles the water of purification shall wash his clothes; and he who touches the water of purification shall be unclean until evening.

Today, I think we can see that Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, is the antitype of the red heifer. So it’s easy to see why the Jews disputed with John the Baptist’s disciples about purification when he was baptizing the multitudes who came to him. This dispute probably arose because John was baptizing with authority. Yet, they seemed to think that he was not in compliance with the statutes of Numbers 19.

Questions were asked. Why are you baptizing? Who are you? What is your authority? He gave his credentials by quoting the scriptures about the forerunner of Messiah. John had a commission to the nation. I believe the Scriptures show his purpose was to bring Israel back into covenant relationship with God. This would be accomplished by purification and remission of their sins. Zacharias’ prophecy in Luke 1:67-77 established this: Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying: 68 Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited and redeemed His people, 69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of His servant David, 70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, Who have been since the world began, 71 That we should be saved from our enemies And from the hand of all who hate us, 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers And [notice] to remember His holy covenant, 73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham: 74 To grant us that we, Being delivered from the hand of our enemies, Might serve Him without fear, 75 [notice] In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. 76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, 77 To give knowledge of salvation to His people By the remission of their sins.

In a future day, God said He would baptize (wash away the filth of) all Israel (Isa 4:3,4). God would also judge at that time. Isaiah’s prophecy seems to be pointing to the time of the tribulation. This and similar passages may explain why the whole nation was in expectation (Lk 3:15) and went out to John wondering if he was the Messiah.

It is interesting to remember that under the law, the priests were baptized when they were thirty years old (Num 4:2,3,23; 8:6,7; 1 Ch 23:3) in preparation for their consecration as priests (Ex 28:41-29:9). The anointing with oil during this consecration may represent the Holy Spirit. Since Peter’s message was a Jewish gospel (Acts 2:22,36), water baptism preceded Holy Spirit baptism as Acts 2:38 shows us: Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

God promised to make Israel a kingdom of priests in Ex 19:5,6 and Isa 61:6:

Ex 19:5,6 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Isa 61:6 These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel. But you shall be named the priests of the LORD, they shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you shall boast.

Since Isa 61:1,2 was fulfilled in Christ’s ministry, it is reasonable to believe that Isa 61:6 is linked with it also. The nation of Israel would be baptized to become a kingdom of priests. Isaiah 61:1,2a was quoted by Luke in 4:16-21: So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: 18 The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD. 20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.

I believe John the Baptist baptized Israel in fulfillment of Ex 19:5,6 and Isa 61:6. He baptized great crowds for the Lord from all the tribes, not just from the tribe of Levi, according to Mat 3:5,6: “Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” Apparently John sprinkled them with water just as Moses confirmed the old covenant with Israel using blood (Ex 24:3-8).

In Eze 36, God had promised to sprinkle them with water to make them clean. Again, it appears that John was preparing them to be a kingdom of priests. In Acts 2:38, Peter was doing the same thing. In fact, the circumcision believers were later called a royal priesthood by Peter in 1 Pe 2:5,9: You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

John baptized Jesus when He was about 30 years old (Lk 3:23). This baptism was for the sins of the world just as His death baptism (Lk 12:50) was. That’s why He told John, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mat 3:15). Christ was also baptized with the Spirit (John 1:33). These three baptisms witness to Christ’s provision of eternal life according to 1 Jo 5:8-11: There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood 9 . . . . for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son . . . . 11 And this is the witness: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

John the Baptist explained why he baptized Christ. It was to reveal to Israel that Jesus was the Messiah: “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water” (John 1:31).

John preached a baptism for the remission of sins in Mat 3:1-6 and Lk 3:3,8.

Mat 3:1-6 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” 3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.’” 4 And John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

Lk 3:3,8 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, 8 “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

This baptism was referred to as “a baptism of repentance” in Luke 3:3 and Acts 13:24 because the people confessed their sins while he was baptizing them (Mat 3:6). This is why John castigated the Pharisees and lawyers when they came to his baptism but were not willing to submit to this aspect of its meaning (Lk 7:30). This baptism for repentance would be too humiliating for them. They preferred to resist the counsel of God for themselves. As you know, God’s counsel is that all have room for repentance (2 Pe 3:9).

In Mat 3:11, John said, “I indeed baptize you with water for repentance.” Their sins were forgiven when they submitted to this baptism while confessing their sins. This is why John’s baptism is also referred to as “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Lk 3:3). John 3:25 shows the Jews understood that the biblical purpose of baptism was purification. Whether or not they based their dispute directly on the purification of Num 19:9-21, we can see that John’s ministry was to bring “knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins to His people,” Israel (Lk 1:76,77).

Therefore, I draw the following conclusions concerning water baptism:

1. It is Jewish, based on Mosaic law.

2. It is an initiatory rite for the priesthood.

3. It accompanied true repentance and confession of sins.

4. It resulted in the remission of sins.

5. It is associated with the Messianic Kingdom and the new covenant.

Water baptism continued as a requirement for salvation after Pentecost because God continued to offer Israel the kingdom: Acts 3:19-26 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23’And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. 25 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

As an open theist, you understand that if they had repented, God would have sent Christ back (Acts 3:20). Before Pentecost, Christ had commanded belief and water baptism as requirements for salvation shortly after His resurrection. Mk 16:16 says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Both “believes” and “is baptized” are translated from aorist participles. According to Greek syntax, the action of these participles must precede the action of the main verb, “will be saved.” Therefore, a person had to believe and be baptized before he would be saved. When viewed in its setting of the circumcision covenant, this is consistent with the purification rituals which were imposed on Israel.

It’s interesting that none of the Baptist grammarians even comment on the syntax of Mk 16:16. The best that Robertson could say was, “So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark.” A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, V. I, p. 405, (Broadman, Nashville, Tennessee), 1930. Two manuscripts are used to dispute the inclusion of 16:9-20. They are Codex B and Codex Aleph. However, many very able scholars have shown that these manuscripts are riddled with omissions. Textual criticism is not our subject, but I want you to be aware that the manuscript evidence supporting the inclusion of this passage is overwhelming.

In response to your statement:

quote:

12 or 13 years ago I did research on the phrase “for the remission of sin” (Published in Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity) and found that “for” (eis) did not ordinarily mean “to cause” or “produce” in Jewish thought, but “with a view toward.” The Jews would be ceremonially washed “for” a number of things (often spoken in a threefold manner) -- e.g. the glory of Israel, the glory of God, the wisdom of Rabbi Shivat). So I don’t see why we should assume that Peter meant to say “be baptized to cause the remission of sins.”

I’ve read and appreciate your material in Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, and concur with most of what you say. I want to make it clear that I believe God’s grace was necessary in every dispensation. He also requires faith on the part of the believer in every dispensation. The blood of Christ is the means of salvation in every dispensation. But in the dispensation that Peter said the contents of Acts 2:38, God required their faith to be expressed by being baptized. The same message expressed in Acts 2:38 was also expressed in Mk 16:15: “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved”. I could not find your thoughts on this passage in your Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity book.

I just finished the following list by combing through the many times eis is used in the NT. I gave up when I finished 1 Timothy and didn’t find any that were very important for my argument. Here are the portions that I think show a similar view, that Acts 2:38 shows God required their faith and water baptism to be saved at Pentecost:

(eis) is used over 1,700 times in the Greek text of the NT. It has many meanings. One of them is into/unto, or, for. Here are some examples:

Mat 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to (eis) life, and there are few who find it.

Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter (eis) the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Mat 10:21 Now brother will deliver up brother to (eis) death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.

Mat 18:3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter (eis) the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:8,9 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into (eis) life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into (eis) life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into (eis) hell fire.

Mat 24:13 But he who endures to (eis) the end shall be saved.

Mat 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins.” This is similar to the formula in Acts 2:38.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

John 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in (eis) His name when they saw the signs which He did.

John 5:29 and come forth—those who have done good, to (eis) the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to (eis) the resurrection of condemnation.

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to (eis) everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live (eis ton aiwna) forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that (eis) your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord

Acts 4:30 by stretching out Your hand to (eis) heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.

Act 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had disposed themselves (aysan tetagmenoi I take this as a middle periphrastic pluperfect) to (eis) eternal life, believed.

Acts 24:24 And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in (eis) Christ.

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to (eis) 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 (eis) Me.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to (eis) the gospel of God

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to (eis) salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

Rom 4:3,5,9,18,21 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for (eis) righteousness. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for (eis) righteousness 9 For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for (eis) righteousness. 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to (eis) all men, resulting in (eis) condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to (eis) all men, resulting in (eis = resulting in) justification of life. 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to (eis) eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 6:3,4,16 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into (eis) Christ Jesus were baptized into (eis) His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into (eis) death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin to (eis) death, or of obedience (eis) to righteousness?

Rom 8:18,21,28 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in (eis) us. 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into (eis) the glorious liberty of the children of God. 28 [My translation.] And we know that [God] works with those who love God all things unto (eis) good, with those who are called according to [His] purpose.

Rom 9:8,21-23,31 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as (eis) the seed. 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for (eis) honor and another for (eis) dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for (eis) destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for (eis) glory 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to (eis) the law of righteousness.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel [is that they may be = (eis)] saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto (eis) righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto (eis) salvation.

Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to (eis) the Gentiles.

1 Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for (eis) our glory

1 Co 10:2 all were baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea

2 Co 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in (eis) Christ and has anointed us is God

2 Co 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to (eis) glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

2 Co 7:9,10 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow [led to = eis] repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance to (eis) salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

2 Co 10:8 For even if I should boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord gave us for (eis) edification and not for (eis) your destruction, I shall not be ashamed

Gal 3:6,26,27 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for (eis) righteousness. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into (eis) Christ have put on Christ.

Eph 1:5-8,12 having predestined us to (eis) adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to (eis) Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to (eis) the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward (eis) us in all wisdom and prudence 12 that (eis) we who first trusted in Christ should be to (eis) the praise of His glory. 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until (eis) the redemption of the purchased possession, to (eis) the praise of His glory. 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward (eis) us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power

Eph 3:19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with [unto eis] all the fullness of God.

Eph 4:12-16,30 for the equipping of the saints for (eis) the work of ministry, for (eis) the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to (eis) the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to (eis) a perfect man, to (eis) the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into (eis) Him who is the head—Christ 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for (eis) the edifying of itself in love. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for (eis) the day of redemption.

Eph 6:22 whom I have sent to you for (eis) this very purpose, that you may know our affairs, and that he may comfort your hearts.

Phi 1:19 For I know that this will turn out for (eis) my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ

Phi 2:11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to (eis) the glory of God the Father.

Phi 3:11,16 if, by any means, I may attain to (eis) the resurrection [the out-resurrection, the perfect Christian life] from the dead. 16 Nevertheless, to (eis) the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.

Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us [to be = eis] partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.

Col 4:8 I am sending him to you for (eis) this very purpose, that he may know your circumstances and comfort your hearts

2 Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for (eis) salvation [to be rescued from going through the tribulation] through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth

So, my conclusion for this part of my response is, even after the Ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2, God demanded water baptism for the remission of sins. “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:38).

Now, I realize that a number of great Baptist Greek scholars have attempted to explain this difficult passage. Why was it difficult for them? Since they believe that the body of Christ began at or before Acts 2, and they affirm the Pauline doctrine that belief alone is required for salvation, Peter’s preaching of a “baptism for the remission of sins” poses a serious hermeneutical problem which they had to reconcile.

A.T. Robertson wrote in his monumental grammar, “only the context and the tenor of N.T. teaching can determine whether into, unto, or merely in or on (upon) is the right translation, a task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian.” [p. 592] In other words, Robertson says your theological persuasion will cause you to interpret it the way you do. Of course, I think we can ascertain its meaning in this text by thorough observation.

Years after he authored his grammar, Robertson wrote in his Word Pictures, “This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in I Cor. 2:7 . . . (for our glory).”

I want to emphasize the fact that eis generally means for, into, or unto. In addition to my references, J.B. Smith tabulated the translation of eis for the KJV in his Greek English Concordance. He showed it occurs 1773 times in the TR. Of these 1773 times, it is always translated with the idea of aim or purpose. It occurs 573 times as into, 281 as to, 207 as unto, 140 as for, 138 as in, 58 as on, 29 as toward, 26 as against, 26 as to (with the definite article), 24 times as upon etc. In other words, aim or purpose is the sense of eis in the New Testament.

Robertson continued, “But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41,42 in three examples [which I will not show in Greek] where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc.”

I must be quick to point out that Smith does not list one instance where the translation of eis is “on the basis” or “because one is.” Unfortunately, Robertson’s interpretation was not driven by his comprehensive understanding of Greek grammar or by linguistics, but by his theological position. Ironically, Robertson is the best source to refute his interpretation of eis here. He wrote that the phrase, “In the name of,” is a common expression and quite suitable to the interpretation of the text. He showed that eis has displaced en in modern Greek. He even used Mat 12:41 as an example.

“It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah . . . They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (p. 592).

However, Robertson does not list any further references of the “numerous” usages of eis as “on the basis,” etc., in his grammar on p. 592. But, he is honest and admits that “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.” (pp. 35,36)

Dana and Mantey, also excellent Baptist scholars, have an excellent article on this subject in their Greek grammar. But after showing that Mantey’s examples of causal uses of eis were forced, Turner, in Moulton’s grammar, wrote, “By way of reply, R. Marcus observed that if Mantey is right to interpret these NT passages causally his support must come from theology rather than linguistics.”

Robertson continued, “My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. 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.” (p. 36)

This interpretation would be the answer Robertson sought, but he came to this conclusion only by citing four obscure instances where he thought eis should be translated “on the basis,” or “on the ground.” But these instances in Mat 10:41,42 could be translated more in line with the general meaning of the word, “with a view of”, or “in the sphere of,” and Mat 12:41 could be translated “they repented into the preaching (kayrugma) of Jonah,” that is “into a state of harmony with Jonah’s prophecy,” or “into the object of Jonah’s preaching, righteousness,” or as Turner wrote, “but at is sufficient.”

The important thing to see about Robertson’s argument is this: He took two controversial passages (Mat 10:41; 12:41) where the meaning is unsure in order to try to prove his point. He could not produce anything stronger. There is nothing to substantiate his translation of this word in the other 1700 plus times it is used.

Robertson truly had reason to try to explain away the normal understanding of this passage, for others have definitely asserted its importance for forgiveness of sins.

Pedobaptist Oscar Cullman wrote, “Why is [baptism] further bound up with the immersion for forgiveness of sins that John already practiced, following the precedent of proselyte baptism? It was understandable that proselyte baptism and Johannine baptism should be represented as an act of washing, because its effect was forgiveness of sins. Just as ordinary water takes away the physical uncleanness of the body, so the water of baptism will take away sins.” (Oscar Cullman, Baptism in the New Testament, pp. 10,11)

That able Lutheran expositor, Lenski, also strongly asserted, “The aorist imperative is one of authority and demands a decisive act that is to stand once for all. . . . ‘Repent’ is plural, but ‘be baptized’ has the distributive singular subject ‘everyone of you.’ The two acts, however, always go together in the case of adults, and all difficulty disappears when we properly conceive them as a unit. Let us not separate them. . . . Jesus continued John’s baptism (John 4:1,2). This baptism was not only symbolical. As practiced by both John and Jesus and then as being appointed for all nations it bestowed the remission of sins and was thus a true sacrament. The Twelve, as far as we know, had been baptized only with John’s baptism. . . . ‘Everyone of you’ makes repentance and baptism personal in the highest degree. Salvation deals with each individual. Note the universality: ‘everyone,’ no matter what his condition or position may be. . . . This preposition [eis] connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys nothing real. In order to make baptism such a symbol, we are told that Peter’s phrase means only that baptism pictures remission, a remission we may obtain by some other means at some later day. But this alters the force of Peter’s words. Can one persuade himself that Peter told these sinners who were stricken with their terrible guilt to accept a baptism that pointed to some future remission? Had he no remission to offer them now? And when and how could they get that remission, absolutely the one thing they must have? And how can Ananias in 22:16 say, ‘Be baptized and wash away thy sins!’ as though the water of baptism washed them away by its connection with the Name? (Acts 105-108)

C.S. Lovett, a Baptist, dealt with the problem in his commentary on Acts. His explanation of Acts 2:38 is similar to the reasoning of my thesis. “BAPTIZED. This is for Jews ONLY, specifically those guilty of publicly shaming and crucifying their Messiah. Since they denied Him openly, Peter demands they acknowledge Him openly. He requires the Lord’s method of identification, i.e., the long established custom of Jewish water baptism. It was done in a public place with the phrase, ‘In the name of Jesus of Nazareth’ said over them. Such a public acknowledgment would result in the loss of all things precious to Jews. Done in the face of the Sanhedrin and the mobs which hated Christ, it was solid evidence they had really changed their minds about Jesus. The baptism was identical to that of John the Baptist, only this time they had to mean it. The price was too high for phonies to participate. The outward act certified the inward revolution of mind which made them eligible for the gift of God. Jewish baptism differs from Christian baptism in that it occurs BEFORE salvation, indicating repentance. (Acts pp. 59,60)

The apparent source of Lovett’s comments was Arno C. Gaebelein. Gaebelein was also a strong Baptist. “Repentance and baptism stand out very prominently in this answer to the conscience-stricken Jews, and attached to it is the promise of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. These words not being correctly understood, have led to much confusion. Upon these words doctrines, especially concerning water baptism, have been built, which are not alone nowhere else taught in the Bible, but which are opposed to the Gospel. The words of Peter to his Jewish brethren have been used to make water-baptism a saving ordinance, that only by submission to water-baptism, with repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus, can remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit be obtained. . . . We must bear in mind that Peter addressed those who had openly rejected Jesus. They had, therefore, also openly to acknowledge their wrong and thus openly own Him as Messiah, whom they had disowned by delivering Him into the hands of lawless men. Repentance meant for them to own their guilt in having opposed and rejected Jesus. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (in which it differs from the baptism of John) was the outward expression of that repentance. It was for these Jews, therefore, [notice] a preliminary necessity. And here we must not forget that Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost had it still to do with the kingdom, as we shall more fully learn from his second address in the third chapter. Another offer of the kingdom was made to the nation . . . . Remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In connection with the Jews, baptism was a condition. There is no such condition for Gentiles. The case of Cornelius and those who were assembled in his house to whom Peter preached the Gospel, illustrates this fully. He had not mentioned a word about baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. When he had declared that through “His Name” whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins, his address was cut short; “the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the Word” (chapter x:44). This clearly proves that baptism in water has nothing to do with the gift of the Holy Spirit to these believing Gentiles. Water baptism followed in their case. (The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 61-63)

Finally, an attempt to answer the problem by Robert Gromacki appeared in “Confident Living”. Gromacki presented a solid argument under the titles, “Immediate Context, Greater Context, Ministry of John the Baptist,” and “Doctrine of Salvation.” However, his argument from “Grammar” is only an argument using grammar. It does not prove what he asserts.

He wrote, “The grammar of the verse indicates that only repentance is required to receive remission of sins. Here is my translation of the verse from the Greek, using some extra words to bring out some key differences not observable in the English text: ‘Repent [you, plural], and let each one [singular] of you be baptized [singular], upon the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins, and you will receive [you, plural] the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ The command to repent and the promise to receive are both plural verbs. The command to be baptized is singular. The imperative (‘let each one of you be baptized’) is parenthetical. Peter’s actual command was: ‘Repent . . . upon the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ Peter gave the audience only one thing to do in order to receive the remission of sins. There was only one direct command: ‘Repent [you, plural].’”

Unfortunately, Gromacki’s interpretation is not correct for a number of reasons. To begin, there were two commands: Repent! Be baptized! They were both plural commands (even though “be baptized” is a singular verb) since the use of hekastos, each one, distributes the command among the plural you, humwn. Hekastos is frequently used this way in the Greek New Testament. I will present a few examples:

Lk 2:3 So all went (plural) to be registered, everyone (singular) to his own city.

Acts 2:6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone (singular) heard (plural) them speak in his own language.

Acts 2:8 “And how is it that we hear (plural), each (singular) in our own (plural) language in which we were born?

1 Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together (plural), each (singular) of you has (singular) a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

2 Co 5:10 For we (plural) must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each (singular) one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Phi 2:4 Let each (singular) of you look out (plural) not only for his (plural) own interests, but also for the interests of others.

Heb 8:11 “None (singular) of them (supplied) shall teach (plural) his (singular) neighbor, and none (singular) his (singular) brother, saying (singular), ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know (plural) Me, from the least (singular) of them (plural) to the greatest (singular) of them (plural).

Rev 20:13 And they were judged (plural), each one (singular) according to his (plural) works.

His translation also was not accurate. Finally, although Gromacki teaches Greek, he seems to be unaware that a partitive genitive occurs with hekastos in this passage. Blass, Debrunner and Funk state, “The partitive genitive or the genitive of the divided whole . . . . is exclusively used with hekastos” (p. 90). Pas (all) before an anarthrous substantive means everyone (not, each one, like hekastos, but anyone).

Therefore, by taking the natural meaning of this passage, I think we can see that water baptism was essential, at that time, for the remission of sins. This requirement fits right into the other passages which show that water baptism was an imposed condition for salvation under the covenant of circumcision.

In Christ,

Bob Hill

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/30/2001 1:31 AM (GMT -6)

An illustration: Something a little bit weak, in Reformed Covenant Theology (at least on the very surface, and in my own poor observation of it.) is the practice of connecting everything in a line. When they argue with each other about whether young children should partake of the Lord's Supper (You can see this on the net.) comparisons are often made to how all partook at the 1st Passover. The prevailing thought is that what we do now is modeled on what was done then. I am glad they are not consistent in that.

Along that line I read the below by Bob. (carefully illustrated with texts)

BOB: Today, I think we can see that Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, is the antitype of the red heifer.

Response: One thing. And by analogy this says a lot. The "Second Adam" (Adam) was NOT modeled on the "First Adam" (Christ, the God-man). The First Adam was actually created "in the image of" the Second Adam. This makes a great difference! The whole of the OT prefigures God's work, accomplished for all time in Christ. "Abraham saw His day and rejoiced." Bob does very well in his treatment of the Trinity to put the SON/Logos in the OT!!! So, then? Is it really proper to say, as you do, Bob: "that Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, is the antitype of the red heifer." Isn't it through Christ that the heifer takes its meaning? Do you define Christ by the heifer? Isn't it more proper to say that the heifer is a "type" of Christ?

That's not so hard.

PotOnWheel

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 10/30/2001 06:45:15 AM

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 10/30/2001 5:20 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Okay, I'll bite. But the question itself is bizzare to me. What am I doing trying to figure out how many possible routes God has for something?

I believe this question for you is relevant because you seem to be OK with pointing out the many times in the Old Testament that God responds to Israel's acceptance or rejection of His message to them (Josh 5:6; Jer 18:7-10; 26:1-19 etc), but when we come to the New Testament the idea that God would respond to Israel's acceptance or rejection of His word in a similar manner to the way He does in the Old Testament seems very unlikely according to your view. You have confirmed my suspicion. You don't see any of this responsiveness from God towards Israel in the New Testament and this is one of the main reasons why you and Bob disagree with each other.

quote:
It seems to me that God has one promise to bless all people through the Abrahamic covenant. Christ is the fulfillment of that promise. We are ALL involved in that promise by virtue of the category, "all nations" (Gen. 12).

I agree! The question is not "Will all nations be blessed by God through Abraham?" but "How will all nations be blessed through Abraham?"

quote:
Those who have faith in God's faithfulness are surely saved and reconciled, those who don't know, the work has still been done for them, but I cannot say with confidence what will happen (hence the Great Commission is an imperative statement of universal endurance until Christ returns), perhaps their conscience will bear witness (Romans 2). One plan, one savior, one promise, one salvation, one baptism, one Lord. Pretty simple plan.

Not as simple as you might think once the so-called "Great Commission" is examined in the light of the more specific marching orders that Christ gave to "the twelve" before His ascension (specificly Matt 10:5; 15:24; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8) and the behavior of "the twelve" and their disciples afterwards (Acts 8:1; 10:10-15,28; 11:1-3,19).

quote:
Paul himself seemed to have as many questions as answers with regard to Israel's fate in Romans, so I hope you are not headed there to sort all this out for us.

What "questions" do you have in mind? It seems that Paul understood how God would react if Israel responded to His mercy in different ways (Rom 11:20-24).

quote:
"There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is the Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:12-13)

Has there always been no distinction between Jew and Greek? There seems to have been an important distinction between Jews and the rest of the world for a long time (Gen 17) including the time that Christ ministered on earth (Matt 10:5; 15:22-28) and into the ministry of "the twelve" in Acts according to Peter (Acts 10:10-15,28). The prophets seemed to make an important distinction between Jew and Gentile in their writings (Is 2:2-4; 61:6-7; Zec 8:20-23).

It seems to me that the earliest time that the distinction between Jew and Greek was abolished was when the mystery was revealed to Paul (Eph 3:4-6; Col 1:26-27) who was the one that preached that there was no longer any distinction between Jew and Greek (Rom 10:12; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).

Looking forward to your response

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 10/30/2001 10:27:24 AM

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 10/30/2001 9:04 PM (GMT -6)

Dear Greg,

You asked:

quote:

I’m wondering what you do with Matt 28:19. Go and make disciples of all nations... baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

You probably are asking if the 12’s ministry was only to Israel, what does the great commission mean. But, when we consider this commission, we have to look in the gospels. What eschatological promises were made by Christ under the gospel of circumcision? The Twelve were promised thrones and the right to judge Israel. Others will receive “a hundredfold, and inherit everlasting life” (Mat 19:28,29). But even these promises are conditional. The Twelve must first follow Christ (19:28). The others will have to leave “houses or brothers or sister or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake.” Their hope is the resurrection and second coming with its deliverance after the tribulation when the kingdom is restored to Israel (Acts 1:6). But this commission seems far more universal.

Christ had told them the kingdom message. It was very important in Christ’s ministry because of the promises made to David. The kingdom, as prophesied, will be a time of Israelite supremacy (Mat 8:11,12). Those who do not maintain their covenant relationship with God will be cut off from the kingdom and cast into outer darkness (Mat 8:12). I think these are the same who will have the kingdom taken from them and given to the nation which will bear fruit. This nation is the little flock (Lk 12:32), Israel in true covenant relationship with God (1 Pet 2:9), and proselytes to Messianic Judaism. When this happens, it will be the fulfillment of Daniel 7:27: “Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.”

The gospel of the circumcision had its basis in the covenant of circumcision. The apostles of the circumcision were acutely aware of its requirements (Gen 17:10-14). They would not go against God’s covenant (Act 10:28). Their ministry before the body of Christ began seems to have been to their brothers (Isa 66:18-23; Mat 10:5-15; 28:18-20 with Act 10:28 in view). But proselytes would also be made. They certainly had the Davidic kingdom in mind (Act 1:6).

The gospel of the kingdom for them seems to be the good news that the long promised Davidic kingdom would be established. The time of their trouble was near.

When Christ sent the apostles into the world to preach the gospel of the kingdom they were to baptize them with water after they believed so they would be saved. The formula for this baptism was not spelled out in Mk 16:15,16: And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” In Matthew, the formula for the baptism was given. Here the they were baptized in the name [singular] of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe they were to baptize this way because the believer was to be identified with all three persons of the God-head since they had not specifically rejected Jesus Christ. Mat 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you [This teaching was the kingdom gospel, not the new gospel given to Paul, later.]; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Mat 24:14 “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come”.

As baptism was essential for salvation under the Baptist’s and Christ’s ministries (Lk 3:3; Jo 3:5; Mk 16:15,16), so also was it under the ministry of the twelve (Mk 16:16; Act 2:38).

Even after the body of Christ began with the salvation of Paul, we see that water baptism will still part of the process of salvation for the covenant people in the future tribulation (1 Pe 3:20,21). Of course, we have no record of a circumcision apostle evangelizing after Cornelius was saved. The only activity we read about in the Bible concerning the circumcision apostles is their written ministry. This was extremely important because it was preparing the covenant people for their prophesied time of trouble.

In Christ,

Bob

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/31/2001 1:49 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Bob: Of course, we have no record of a circumcision apostle evangelizing after Cornelius was saved. The only activity we read about in the Bible concerning the circumcision apostles is their written ministry.

I can not believe what I am reading!

That is just plain dumb to think that since you don't have a detailed record of their lives that they just plain STOPPED!

But the bigger problem is that you are "messing" with the Gospel itself! All I can see in what you are presenting of the Gospel is that God was pretending this way with this group and that way with that group. Do you miss the main point? the problem is common to all--the same problem: SIN. That sin gave us another problem: DEATH. Salvation, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the ONLY Gospel. What is sick needs healing. What is sick was assumed in the Incarnation of the God-man, Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit. There is only ONE salvation. And salvation is real, physical. God assumed all that had to be healed. That's the same for Peter as for Paul. It is even the same for David, and for Abraham. They "saw His day and rejoiced." Their "covenants" didn't save them. The blood of heifers didn't same them. Faith didn't even save them--nothing but the blood of Christ died for their sins. And they were justified by His Resurrection. (Rom.) All this foolish nonsense about multiple, parallel gospels has got to stop!

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 10/31/2001 8:10 AM (GMT -6)

TOW - I think it is wrong to oppose an accurate biblical observation. I believe Bob was speaking the fact that they had agreed that Paul should go into the whole world, and they to the nation of Israel. The fact that their ministry seemed to have squelched while Paul's bloomed was indicative and fully consistent of the transition that God was putting into place, away from national Israel (the circumcision) and towards the uncircumcision. Until they lived out their covenanted relationship, their gospel and way of faith was still appropriate for them.

1Co 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.

Remember, Paul spoke about the differences between the circumcision and uncircumcision, using various terminology scores of times. Roman's 4:10 (about Abraham - "while circumcised or while uncircumcised") is a good example of Paul's attention to detail over the importance of understanding these differences, for Paul, these considerations they weigh in heavily and often.

quote:
All I can see in what you are presenting of the Gospel is that God was pretending this way with this group and that way with that group.

That's quite the false generalization. God didn't pretend with Israel their nationalistic law based redemptive relationship, nor did God pretend about every dispensational change that happened after Israel was set aside for a time. Wor was the changes that was taking place within the previous dispensation to be characterized by God pretending, i.e. water baptism and the free offering and personal indwelling of the HS to everyone who becomes saved, previously, they didn't used to be part of salvation. These changes are simply accurate observations from the Bible, no pretending about it.

quote:
Do you miss the main point? the problem is common to all--the same problem: SIN. That sin gave us another problem: DEATH.

I fail again to see the relevance, Bob said nothing to warrant such a response. Did you honestly read what he said? If so then it would be helpful if for a change that you represented him accurately, instead of so much misunderstanding.

quote:
Salvation, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the ONLY Gospel.

It would be nice if you particularly identified by actually quoting what it is that you disagree with so that we could know where you come up with this stuff. Bob said that the work of Christ is the only means of salvation for everyone in every dispensation. Bob also says that the requirements from God for man's obedience to become saved has changed, and I think he has Biblically presented why especially in the case of baptism.

quote:
All this foolish nonsense about multiple, parallel gospels has got to stop!

I think Bob and myself would rather abide by the truth from God's word, even if it disagrees with misunderstanding. There is only one gospel since the last one has ceased for the time being.

Jesus taught salvation by works (plus faith) in the most plain and simple terms.

quote:
Mt 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Lu 10:25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" 27 So he answered and said," `You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and `your neighbor as yourself.'" 28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

Apparently, you fail to accept the Lord's teaching of the requirement for obeying God's commandments for salvation. In fact, if it wasn't for an accurate understanding of what it means to obey God's commandments, one might mistake these plain teachings to suggest works only for salvation. Of course we all know that works apart from faith is never taught for salvation, and that God commanded works of obedience harmoniously together with faith and love in God. So, if you teach salvation according to God's commandments, you inextricably are also teaching salvation by faith as well

quote:
Ex 20:5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

De 30:20,) and many others.

Bob Hill spoke similarly when he said:

quote:
The conditional components are clearly evident in His proclamation (Mat 5:44,45; 7:21). Repentance is also greatly emphasized in His message (Mat 4:17). The Beatitudes, for example, are weighty with conditional thoughts. Following the model prayer He says, "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Mat 6:14,15). Notice, their forgiveness was dependent upon their act of forgiving. Remember, this was spoken while He was teaching His disciples (Mat 5:1,2). In the later commissioning of the Twelve (Mat 10:22) and the Olivet discourse, we find the conditional statement, "But he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Mat 10:22; 24:13). Consider also the conditions in the parable of the sower. Notice the teaching about the one who received the word "but endures only for a while," or "the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word" (Mat 13:21,22). The principle was, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mat 19:17). Of course, this would have to be done by faith (Rom 9:30-32). I think this clearly shows that it was necessary to keep the covenant of law to remain in the vital covenant relationship which would ultimately result in salvation.

and here as well:

quote:
The gospel of the circumcision had its basis in the covenant of circumcision. The apostles of the circumcision were acutely aware of its requirements (Gen 17:10-14). They would not go against God's covenant (Act 10:28). Their ministry before the body of Christ began, with the salvation of Paul, seems to have been to their brothers (Isa 66:18-23; Mat 10:5-15; 28:18-20 with Act 10:28 in view).

They certainly had the Davidic kingdom in mind (Act 1:6). The gospel of the kingdom for them seems to be the good news that the long promised Davidic kingdom would be established. The time of their trouble was near. Their marching orders had been given: "Go therefore" (Mat 28:19); and, "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come" (Mat 24:14).

Baptism was essential for salvation under the Baptist's and Christ's ministries: Lk 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Mk 16:15,16 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. It also was essential under the ministry of the twelve (Act 2:38).

Even after the body of Christ began with the salvation of Paul, we see that water baptism still saves the covenant people (1 Pe 3:20,21). Of course, we have no record of a circumcision apostle evangelizing after Cornelius was saved. The only activity we read about in the Bible concerning the circumcision apostles is their written ministry. This was extremely important because their epistles were preparing the covenant people for their prophesied time of trouble.

Jesus did not change the requirements for salvation until after He set aside national Israel and started up the dispensation of Grace. Understand, don't set aside what God did.
Blessings,
tTt

Edited by - 1way on 10/31/2001 1:38:14 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/31/2001 8:29 AM (GMT -6)

YES! Now I see the problem more clearly. Thanks 1way, your candor helped me tremendously.

Savation by works. This justifies the search for all the different modes of works that have been required.

Better yet, I can now whole-heartedly reject the whole scheme as just so much Law. Forget the dispensations, there are only two ways to relate to God, through Law or through Grace. Thank God for the Reformation! Sola fide, sola gracia! I'd sooner become an antinomialist then a dispensationalist. Not by my own whim mind you, but on the basis of the radical message of Jesus Christ. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

You can have your "Law" if you like, but you will ALWAYS fail to measure up to it. I recommend to you the grace of God through Jesus Christ.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/31/2001 1:42:23 PM

194 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual