Acts 22:16 Paul's salvation

[Doug Brents]

Spoken like a true cultist. I agree - you are not God, even though you pretend to know that if a person believes on Tuesday and dies on Wednesday, before they were baptized. they will spend eternity in Hell.

That is not what I made up; that is what Scripture tells us. You don't have a problem with me. You have a problem with God, and His commands to you. You refuse to surrender your will to His, and bow your knee to His authority.

Your God is a MONSTER, not the God of the Bible. If that were true, then the thief on the cross would also have gone to hell, because YOUR GOD CANNOT MAKE ANY EXCEPTIONS.

First off, the thief on the cross is not an "exception". He was promised salvation under the OT, because Jesus had not yet died. Jesus was at complete liberty to change His last will and testament as He chose right up to the instant He died. At that point, as with any human will, the will was locked and could no longer be changed (Heb 9:16-17).
Secondly, I have never said that God cannot make exceptions. He may make exceptions, but I cannot teach on the exceptions; I must teach what Scripture says, and it does not give the indication that there are any exceptions.

On the contrary, I remember that you pretty much told me that I am not saved and cannot go to heaven, because I don't believe what you do.

I may have told you that you were not saved when you thought you were (when you believed but had not yet been baptized), but I don't know you our what you have or have not done. You say you are saved, I have to accept that. But does God know that you are saved? There will be many who think they are saved, but God never knew. And it is not so much that we know God but that He knows us that is important (Gal 4:9). I pray that you really are saved, but you teach a doctrine that risks the souls of those you teach. You teach a doctrine that is different from what is shown in Scripture. Does that make you a faithful servant?

 

[dwight92070]

The Jews depended on the works of the Law for their salvation/justification - which consisted of rites and ceremonies like circumcision, keeping Sabbaths and other holy days, and observing the Jewish feasts, eating kosher, etc.

But Paul told them that they could not be justified by the works of the Law, but ("ONLY" is implied here)through faith in Christ Jesus. Gal. 2:16

Even today, some Christians depend on Christian rites for their salvation/justification - which consists of going to church, taking communion, keeping the Sabbath and other holy days, and water baptism, etc.

But Paul tells us that we cannot be saved or justified by any good work, but ONLY (implied) by being born again and renewed by the Holy Spirit:

Titus 3:5 "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."

 

[dwight92070]

The New Covenant was in effect from Matthew 1:1 on, and is still in effect today.

Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom has been preached, ... "
John 1:17 "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came to be realized through Jesus Christ."

The thief on the cross happened long AFTER the New Covenant began -about 33-34 years later. The New Covenant began with the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist in Luke 1:1.

 

[dwight92070]

Jesus tells us that "judgment, mercy, and faith" were "the weightier matters of the Law". Matthew 23:23

Notice that they all have to do with salvation and/or justification. If baptism were necessary to be born again, Jesus would have said that, under the New Covenant, we must also be baptized, but he didn't.

 

[Doug Brents]

The Jews depended on the works of the Law for their salvation/justification - which consisted of rites and ceremonies like circumcision, keeping Sabbaths and other holy days, and observing the Jewish feasts, eating kosher, etc.

But Paul told them that they could not be justified by the works of the Law, but ("ONLY" is implied here)through faith in Christ Jesus. Gal. 2:16

Even today, some Christians depend on Christian rites for their salvation/justification - which consists of going to church, taking communion, keeping the Sabbath and other holy days, and water baptism, etc.

But Paul tells us that we cannot be saved or justified by any good work, but ONLY (implied) by being born again and renewed by the Holy Spirit:

Titus 3:5 "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."

What does Paul mean in Titus 3:5, hmmm? When did God do what saved us? When He sent Jesus to die for us. And He did so while we were still enemies to Him (Rom 5:8). He saved us when we did not deserve it, because there was nothing we could possibly do in order to deserve it. The conditions He set for reception of His gift (salvation) do not in any way constitute "EARNING" His gift. But they are still essential, because He said they are essential. Repentance, confession, and baptism are not "good works". They are acts of faith.

The New Covenant was in effect from Matthew 1:1 on, and is still in effect today.

Wrong. The New Covenant went into effect when Jesus died. Jesus lived His whole life under the Old Covenant (Gal 4:4-5), and the New Covenant is His "last will and testament" which was sealed and made effective by His blood (Heb 9:15ff).

Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom has been preached, ... "

The Gospel has been preached, and all during Jesus' lifetime He said the Kingdom was "at hand" (which means it is coming soon, but is not here yet).

John 1:17 "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came to be realized through Jesus Christ."

The thief on the cross happened long AFTER the New Covenant began -about 33-34 years later. The New Covenant began with the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist in Luke 1:1.

The thief on the cross was promised Paradise just before the New Covenant came into effect. Sorry, Dwight, but your ploy to make the thief on the cross relevant to NT salvation fails.

 

[dwight92070]

Romans 10:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and 1 Peter 4:17 all speak about not obeying the gospel. That means, or at least implies, that there is the need to obey the gospel. So, I would ask you what it means to obey the gospel. Does "obey the gospel" mean "only believe"?

You completely dodged my question about Romans 4:5. What additional condition, besides faith, does Paul require in that verse, in order for a believer to be credited with righteousness?

You're the one who says that faith by itself is not sufficient, so tell me what Paul instructs us here to add to faith.

 

[Doug Brents]

You completely dodged my question about Romans 4:5. What additional condition, besides faith, does Paul require in that verse, in order for a believer to be credited with righteousness?

You're the one who says that faith by itself is not sufficient, so tell me what Paul instructs us here to add to faith.

Faith in itself is not a complete concept without the actions of obedience that are necessarily a part of it. Wherever you find "faith" as a condition for receiving salvation you must assume the actions of faith that God says "lead to/result in" receiving salvation. To do otherwise is to misinterpret Scripture.

 

[dwight92070]

It's amazing how even the men who put the Bible together didn't know as much as you do. Otherwise, they would have put the four gospels in the Old Testament. It's too bad they didn't know what they were doing.

Joseph and Mary lived under the Law, so Jesus was born under the Law. But to say that He lived His whole life under the Law is inaccurate. He Himself WAS the New Covenant, so when He arrived, the New Covenant arrived.

The "wheels" of the New Covenant were already turning. (They were not waiting for His crucifixion)

Something new and earth-shaking and world-changing was about to happen. This was not only good news, it would be the top story in all of history! God was becoming a man to deliver all of mankind!

And you want to relegate this to the Old Covenant? The Law of Moses?

I DON'T THINK SO!

Gabriel announced Him to Zacharias, then Gabriel announced Him to Mary, that He would take David's throne as King, and that His Kingdom would have no end, then Elizabeth prophesied about Him, Mary herself prophesied about Him, Zacharias prophesied about Him, the angel of the Lord told the shepherds that the Messiah had been born, and then Simeon prophesied that He Himself was the Salvation of both Israel and the Gentiles and Anna spoke of Him to those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

Jesus knew who He was and what His mission was even when He was 12 years old. Did He say, "I must obey the Law of Moses"? No, He said "Did you not know that I had to be in the things of My Father?" He was all about the things of the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant.

He was born a King. The wise men knew that. They said, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?" Nathanael knew that when He first met Jesus: "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."

So to suggest that the Kingdom of God didn't arrive until His death is just plain wrong. Can you imagine what people would say? "Oh yeah, they say that He is a King, but He doesn't have a Kingdom yet. He has to wait until He dies - THEN He will have a Kingdom!" Are you kidding me?

The Kingdom of God arrived when the King arrived. So He already had a Kingdom - the Jews. Most of them, however, did not know it yet. Those who believed in Him were His kingdom, which originally were believing Jews - and later believing Gentiles joined.

Jesus spoke of His Kingdom to Pilate. He acknowledged that He was a King and said that everyone who was of the truth was part of His kingdom. His kingdom was not of this world, however there were those who were part of His kingdom, left on earth, when He returned to His Father. Today, we are also part of His Kingdom.

 

[Doug Brents]

It's amazing how even the men who put the Bible together didn't know as much as you do. Otherwise, they would have put the four gospels in the Old Testament. It's too bad they didn't know what they were doing.

Joseph and Mary lived under the Law, so Jesus was born under the Law. But He Himself WAS the New Covenant, so when He arrived, the New Covenant arrived.

No. Jesus was the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 12:24). The New Covenant was sealed by His blood (Matt 6:28), and the New Covenant could not be sealed without the shedding of His blood (Heb 9:16).

Gabriel announced Him to Zacharias, then Gabriel announced Him to Mary, that He would take David's throne as King, and that His Kingdom would have no end, then Elizabeth prophesied about Him, Mary herself prophesied about Him, Zacharias prophesied about Him, the angel of the Lord told the shepherds that the Messiah had been born, and then Simeon prophesied that He Himself was the Salvation of both Israel and the Gentiles and Anna spoke of Him to those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. Jesus knew who He was and what His mission was even when He was 12 years old. Did He say, "I must obey the Law of Moses"? No, He said "Did you not know that I had to be in the things of My Father?"

At that time, "the things of My Father" were the Old Covenant Law of Moses.

He was all about the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. He was born a King. The wise men knew that. They said, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?" The angels told the shepherds that He was born as their Savior, their Messiah, and their Lord.

All of this is true, but that doesn't make that the beginning of the New Covenant. A covenant is an agreement, a contract "last will". And as Heb 9:16 says, it cannot be sealed without the death of the one who made it. It required Jesus to die to establish the New Covenant.

So He ALREADY HAD A KINGDOM - THE JEWS, BUT THEY DIDN'T REALIZE IT YET. However, Nathanael knew it when He first met Jesus: "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel. Then, as more disciples followed Him, even Gentiles came to Him, believed in Him and saw Him as their King as well.

David was anointed king of Israel when he was in his teens, but he was not made king of Israel until he turned 30. Jesus was born king of the whole world, but His Kingdom did not start until after His death (and resurrection). That is when He was glorified.

 

[dwight92070]

Faith in itself is not a complete concept without the actions of obedience that are necessarily a part of it. Wherever you find "faith" as a condition for receiving salvation you must assume the actions of faith that God says "lead to/result in" receiving salvation. To do otherwise is to misinterpret Scripture.

Of course, my post was addressed to Jim, so I'm still waiting for his answer.

No. Jesus was the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 12:24). The New Covenant was sealed by His blood (Matt 6:28), and the New Covenant could not be sealed without the shedding of His blood (Heb 9:16).

At that time, "the things of My Father" were the Old Covenant Law of Moses.

All of this is true, but that doesn't make that the beginning of the New Covenant. A covenant is an agreement, a contract "last will". And as Heb 9:16 says, it cannot be sealed without the death of the one who made it. It required Jesus to die to establish the New Covenant.

David was anointed king of Israel when he was in his teens, but he was not made king of Israel until he turned 30. Jesus was born king of the whole world, but His Kingdom did not start until after His death (and resurrection). That is when He was glorified.

Typical - you ignored most of what I said. Which of course, prove you wrong.

 

[Doug Brents]

Of course, my post was addressed to Jim, so I'm still waiting for his answer.

Of course, and he is welcome to answer you as well. I appreciate his viewpoint.

Typical - you ignored most of what I said. Which of course, prove you wrong.

No, most of what you said was irrelevant to the topic. You want to make a circumstantial case, but circumstantial arguments do not hold water when there is direct evidence to the contrary. Scripture says quite clearly that Jesus lived His whole life under the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant came into effectiveness when He died. There is no point in addressing your ancillary arguments when I have already refuted your whole premise with Scripture.

 

[Jim]

You completely dodged my question about Romans 4:5. What additional condition, besides faith, does Paul require in that verse, in order for a believer to be credited with righteousness?

You're the one who says that faith by itself is not sufficient, so tell me what Paul instructs us here to add to faith.

 

[Jim]

You completely dodged my question about Romans 4:5. What additional condition, besides faith, does Paul require in that verse, in order for a believer to be credited with righteousness?

You're the one who says that faith by itself is not sufficient, so tell me what Paul instructs us here to add to faith.

None, but Paul was not laying down the conditions for being saved.. His purpose there was to contrast the law and grace. His main point there was to show that righteousness does not come through the law. Paul, in variety of other passages specified other conditions besides faith for the believer to saved. And nowhere does He ever say that faith is the only condition.

 

[dwight92070]

Of course, and he is welcome to answer you as well. I appreciate his viewpoint.

No, most of what you said was irrelevant to the topic. You want to make a circumstantial case, but circumstantial arguments do not hold water when there is direct evidence to the contrary. Scripture says quite clearly that Jesus lived His whole life under the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant came into effectiveness when He died. There is no point in addressing your ancillary arguments when I have already refuted your whole premise with Scripture.

The topic was the thief on the cross - you said that was under the Old Covenant.
So you just ignore Luke 16:16 and say that this is irrelevant to the topic?
"The Law and the prophets were until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached ..."
According to this verse, the New Covenant extends throughout the life of Jesus and starts with John.

You also ignore that the four gospels are in the New Testament section of your Bible, which includes the story of the thief on the cross - but that too is irrelevant?

You also brought up the topic that the kingdom of God had not come during Jesus' life - I assume you think it started when He died. So if He was born a King, as the wise men claimed, then is He a King without a Kingdom? And when He started His ministry, Nathanael called Him the King of Israel, whether the Jews recognized it or not. Truly, His kingdom even then was those who were His disciples. He even told Pilate that His kingdom, even though not of this world, was everyone who hears His voice (and follows Him)

But of course, all of that is irrelevant, right?

 

[dwight92070]

None, but Paul was not laying down the conditions for being saved.. His purpose there was to contrast the law and grace. His main point there was to show that righteousness does not come through the law. Paul, in variety of other passages specified other conditions besides faith for the believer to saved. And nowhere does He ever say that faith is the only condition.

You said, " but Paul was not laying down the conditions for being saved"

Neither was James in James 2.

 

[mailmandan]

 

[Jim]

You said, " but Paul was not laying down the conditions for being saved"

Neither was James in James 2.

Yeah, So?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The blood of Jesus actually takes away sins, and it does so during the figurative washing in water as many Scriptures say.

Neither the blood nor the water take away sins. No physical object, gesture, ritual or doctrinal confession can do it.
It is God’s grace which does it. It has always been about God’s mercy, which is given for free.
So, any reference to blood or water cleansing sins found in Scripture is metaphorical.

Let’s avoid talking about the precious blood of Jesus as if it were an object, a kind of soap or disinfectant.
The blood of Jesus was shed and disappeared 2000 years ago. It does not exist anymore, but as a symbol in our minds of Jesus life, and love to men, and obedience to our Father. It moves us all to seek reconciliation with God, and be born into a new kind of life. This is how Christ’s blood “cleanses” our sins. By inspiring us.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You assume that mankind's default position is forgiveness, that the ancient Israelites deserved forgiveness?

No. I assume that God’s default position is forgiveness.
God has always been ready to forgive anyone who comes to Him with a broken contrite heart.
His mercy has always been for free, and in this life on earth.
David expected forgiveness and rebirth in his days. He asked for it (Psalm 51) and he got it.

 

[mailmandan]

You completely dodged my question about Romans 4:5. What additional condition, besides faith, does Paul require in that verse, in order for a believer to be credited with righteousness?

You're the one who says that faith by itself is not sufficient, so tell me what Paul instructs us here to add to faith.

Exactly. The Bible makes it clear in many passages of scripture that man is saved through belief/faith - "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1-2; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-14, 26; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

Now we don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus, baptism? Plus, works? NO. So, then it's faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone.

*Not to be confused with an empty profession of faith/dead faith that remains "alone" - barren of works. (James 2:14-24)