Obadiah
Well-known member
I believe Peter was saved the same way the rest of us are saved through believing in Jesus by faith. As for Cornelius he was also saved before he was baptized which is shown by his receiving the Holy Spirit
"Works Salvation"
- Thread starter Seabass
- Start date
Doug Brents
Well-known member
Jesus' blood (the blood of the New Covenant) had not yet been shed at the Last Supper. So the New Covenant which was sealed with His blood could not have started then. The cup at the Last Supper was foreshadowing of what was to come at the earliest the next day.
If by believing you mean a genuine, action causing, obedient faith (as the Greek word pistis denotes), then you are correct, because that faith will include repentance (Acts 3:19), confession of Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9-10), and baptism (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:8, 1 Pet 3:21). But if you mean intellectual assent, then you are completely off base, because even the demons have that. The demons know that Jesus is God, but they either cannot or will not submit to Him and so remain condemned. Just giving intellectual assent to Jesus does not save, for He is not the savior of those who have intellectual assent, but of those who obey Him (Heb 5:9).
Doug Brents
Well-known member
The word for believe in John 6:29 is the Greek "pisteuēte" which is a derivative of "pistis" which means faith.
pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Definition: to believe, entrust
Usage: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.
And faith without action is dead, worthless, meaningless, and ineffectual (James 2:20, 22, 24, 26). So the work of God is not just intellectual assent, but doing what Scripture says LEADS TO receiving salvation.
Acts 3:19 - repentance LEADS TO receiving forgiveness of sin (salvation).
Rom 10:9-10 - confession of Jesus' name LEADS TO receiving salvation.
Acts 2:38 - baptism LEADS TO receiving salvation.
Thus, these things are included in "believe" as it relates to salvation.
Doug Brents
Well-known member
So you find it permissible to pick and choose from a passage the words that you feel are important and ignore others? Hmmm.
The last half of verse 10 (in red above) in the passage you quoted above is no less God's inspired Word than is the parts of verse 9 that you highlighted.
Acts 2:38 is no less God's inspired Word than is the what you highlighted above.
1 Pet 3:21 is no less God's inspired Word than is the what you highlighted above.
John 3:5 is no less God's inspired Word than is the what you highlighted above.
These passages and many others exhibit additional things that are required that lead to receiving salvation (not follow after having received salvation).
Anja
Member
The process that should normally take place in the life of a new one to the truth is taking in the knowledge of Bible truth. 1(Tim. 2:3, 4)
At some stage he will start to have faith in what he is learning because he starts to apply it in his life. (Heb. 11:6)
Then, his conscience will start to develop, to the point where he becomes repentant of his sins. (Acts 17:30, 31)
He will then, begin to turn his life around in ways that he had never previously imagined possible. (Acts 3:19)
There will soon come a moment where this growing love for God will move him, to find a lonely place, and in deep penitent prayer, he will dedicate himself to God, and a conversion will take place along with the desire to be baptized in the Spirit. (Matt. 16:24; 22:37)
Of course, this is a general outline of the path that it should take, it is not written in stone by any means.
After one has gone to God and dedicated themselves to the doing of his will, he should then be baptized. (Matt. 28:19, 20)
Baptism is an outward display of what has taken place on the inside of the person. It is also, as a ceremony, that enables to let everyone else know that you are now dedicated to God. As also, when one is baptized, they should be completely immersed in water, not just sprinkled. (Mark 1:9, 10; Acts 8:36)
Now that one has been baptized by the Spirit, what does it mean to walk by the Spirit?
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Edward D. Andrews, Blessed by God in Satan’s World: How All Things Are Working for Your Good
At some stage he will start to have faith in what he is learning because he starts to apply it in his life. (Heb. 11:6)
Then, his conscience will start to develop, to the point where he becomes repentant of his sins. (Acts 17:30, 31)
He will then, begin to turn his life around in ways that he had never previously imagined possible. (Acts 3:19)
There will soon come a moment where this growing love for God will move him, to find a lonely place, and in deep penitent prayer, he will dedicate himself to God, and a conversion will take place along with the desire to be baptized in the Spirit. (Matt. 16:24; 22:37)
Of course, this is a general outline of the path that it should take, it is not written in stone by any means.
After one has gone to God and dedicated themselves to the doing of his will, he should then be baptized. (Matt. 28:19, 20)
Baptism is an outward display of what has taken place on the inside of the person. It is also, as a ceremony, that enables to let everyone else know that you are now dedicated to God. As also, when one is baptized, they should be completely immersed in water, not just sprinkled. (Mark 1:9, 10; Acts 8:36)
Now that one has been baptized by the Spirit, what does it mean to walk by the Spirit?
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Edward D. Andrews, Blessed by God in Satan’s World: How All Things Are Working for Your Good
dwight92070
Well-known member
You're still requiring more for salvation than the apostle's did in Acts or even what Jesus Himself required (which is the definition of legalism) And don't tell me that people were saved differently during Jesus' lifetime than they were after His death and resurrection. They were still saved by faith in Jesus alone before being baptized. And yes, the apostles did baptize new disciples and that baptism represented the same thing that it does today.
Jesus never told Zaccheus to say, "Jesus is Lord" and to be baptized BEFORE He announced "Today, salvation has come to this house."
There's no record of Peter instructing each of the 3000 new believers in Acts 2 to verbally say "Jesus is Lord".
Nor did he instruct the additional 2000 new believers in Acts 4 to confess "Jesus is Lord".
Nor did Philip instruct the eunuch in Acts 8 to say the words "Jesus is Lord". It doesn't matter that the eunuch said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Those are NOT the magic words that you demand must be confessed: "Jesus is Lord", or else you're not saved.
Ananias did NOT tell Saul that he must verbally say "Jesus is Lord", nor is there any record that Saul said that in Acts 9.
There is NO record of Cornelius or ANY of his family saying "Jesus is Lord".
Your understanding of Romans 10:9-10 is legalistic, which apparently is how you view Christianity as a whole. Because the Bible itself doesn't show examples of new believers being told: "Don't forget to say - Jesus is Lord - and get baptized, to be sure you're saved. If any of you think you are already born again, have a union with Christ, have your sins forgiven, are already saved -- forget it, none of that happens until you're baptized in.
water."
Dwight - Bible teacher Steve Gregg says that righteousness and salvation, spoken of in Romans 10:9-10 are the same event in the person's heart.
Doug - Oh wow, now that is the person I am going to hang my salvation and the fate of my soul on. NOT!!
Who cares what some faceless name says. What matters is what Scripture says.
Dwight - I quote Steve Gregg one time, who by the way, is the best Bible teacher I've encountered in my 54 years as a Christian (and he has taught for around 55 years), and you accuse me of hanging my salvation and the fate of my soul on him?? What a hate-filled accusation! Then you pile it on with "who cares what some faceless name says?" First, that is a lie, I do not hang my salvation and the fate of my soul on Steve Gregg or any other man than Jesus Himself, even though I greatly admire Steve and the work he is doing.
Since you are also a "faceless name", do you want others to say here on this forum: "Who cares what Doug Brent says?" Is that how you want us to respond to you? I know what you're thinking - in a way, yes, that is how you want us to respond to you, putting the Scripture before you. But the reality is that if you wish to positively affect others on this forum, then you can't be deriding genuine teachers in the body of Christ. And of course you may not know Steve from Adam - so what, listen to what he says, just like you want us to listen to you, then make your judgment. Instead, you immediately deride him and totally ignore what he said.
Now, after all that, listen to what Steve said - "righteousness and salvation occur in a person's heart at the same time - it's the same event", called the new birth, being born again. the same time our sins are forgiven.
So, in reality Romans 10:9-10 refers to a single event, not two events. You don't first believe (the gospel) in your heart and then sometime later, confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord. They happen simultaneously - because whatever you believe in your heart, you will almost immediately voice with your lips. So the one main event referred to here is what you believe in your heart - and when you believe in Jesus in your heart, the verbal confession occurs instinctively in a very short time. So Romans 10:11 basically summarizes verses 9 and 10: "For the scripture says, 'Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed." Notice this summary narrows it down to one event - believing in Him.
dwight92070
Well-known member
So apparently, Titus, you don't believe Paul was saved because he said, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, " 1 Cor. 1:17
Cornelius and his family were already saved before they were baptized, so that's a moot point. If they weren't, then why would the Holy Spirit fall on them before they were baptized?
Now if Cornelius and his family refused to obey Christ's command to be baptized after that, then that is an issue of disobedience, not of salvation. But it is unthinkable that they would do that - their hearts were humble and ready to be saved, and obviously the Holy Spirit knew that.
Obadiah - "To me it is quite clear that salvation, as a free gift, and the need to obey the Lord, are not mutually exclusive propositions."
I agree with Obadiah. Faith without works is required for salvation, (which is itself obedience) but after salvation, true faith will produce good works.
dwight92070
Well-known member
Did you notice that Paul made a distinction between baptizing and preaching the gospel in 1 Cor. 1:17?
Jesus did the same thing in Mark 16;15-16 Two instructions are given:
Verse 15 - 1. Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Verse 16 2. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
Obviously preaching the gospel is what brings salvation by grace through faith without works.
Once they are saved, then they are directed to obey Jesus and be baptized, which of course is a work.
Titus -"I'm still wondering if you believe Peter could be saved without preaching the gospel that Jesus commanded him to preach?" i.e. Mark 16:15-16
I never suggested that any of the apostles should leave out those two verses in their teaching. But what they should not do is add a commandment or teaching that is not in those two verses, like you and Doug do.
You ADD: He who has believed and has NOT been baptized shall be lost.
Jesus did the same thing in Mark 16;15-16 Two instructions are given:
Verse 15 - 1. Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Verse 16 2. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
Obviously preaching the gospel is what brings salvation by grace through faith without works.
Once they are saved, then they are directed to obey Jesus and be baptized, which of course is a work.
Titus -"I'm still wondering if you believe Peter could be saved without preaching the gospel that Jesus commanded him to preach?" i.e. Mark 16:15-16
I never suggested that any of the apostles should leave out those two verses in their teaching. But what they should not do is add a commandment or teaching that is not in those two verses, like you and Doug do.
You ADD: He who has believed and has NOT been baptized shall be lost.
dwight92070
Well-known member
Doug, it's not good that you have to change the meaning of New Testament words in order to make them fit into your interpretation. The word "disciples" always refers to the saved followers of Jesus, with one exception: the disciples of John the Baptist - but even they were saved in the sense that they were obeying God by following John.
You are right that in a general sense "disciples" can mean learners or followers and it could be used to speak of followers of someone other than Jesus. But that's not the case in the New Testament. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it's ever used in the New Testament to mean anything other than saved believers in Jesus.
But then you go on to say: "We are to baptize learners who have accepted the gospel and so MAKE THEM SAVED."!
So here we see your theory of how we can MAKE DISCIPLES SAVED - By baptizing them.
Notice here that what these disciples want or don't want, is not even considered. WE MUST MAKE THEM SAVED. So you impose your will on them and MAKE THEM SAVED.
You are right that in a general sense "disciples" can mean learners or followers and it could be used to speak of followers of someone other than Jesus. But that's not the case in the New Testament. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it's ever used in the New Testament to mean anything other than saved believers in Jesus.
But then you go on to say: "We are to baptize learners who have accepted the gospel and so MAKE THEM SAVED."!
So here we see your theory of how we can MAKE DISCIPLES SAVED - By baptizing them.
Notice here that what these disciples want or don't want, is not even considered. WE MUST MAKE THEM SAVED. So you impose your will on them and MAKE THEM SAVED.
Doug Brents
Well-known member
You want me to lie and tell you that the requirements for salvation were the same before Jesus' death as they are after His death? No, can't do it. Because everything changed when He died: the Law we are under, the path to salvation, everything. And no, I am not requiring more than the Apostles did. I am teaching obedience to what Scripture says brings salvation into our lives.
No, before Jesus' death, they were saved through faith in God as laid out in the Law of Moses. Very few people even knew who Jesus was until His three year ministry began. No one had faith in Him (except His mother) until well into His ministry.
No, Jesus did not command Zaccheus to call Him Lord. But Zaccheus did so anyway, "And he hurried and came down, and received Him joyfully. 7 When the people saw this, they all began to complain, saying, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner!” 8 But Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I am giving to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone, I am giving back four times as much.” 9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”"
You create a comedy of errors in your rush to make me sound ridiculous. The words "Jesus is Lord" is not what Scripture says must be said, nor what I have said must be said. "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord". Any confession of Jesus' Lordship fulfills this, but as Matt 7:21 says, calling Jesus Lord must be accompanied by doing what He says.
I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply said that I will not be hanging my eternal destiny on his false teachings. It doesn't matter what any human says, if it contradicts what Scripture says then it is wrong.
You are correct, I should have been much more diplomatic in my rejection of his false teaching. I do not know him as I have never heard of him before, but the one quote of his that you cited was not Biblically correct, and so I cannot accept him as the Biblical authority that you hold him to be. And yes, if what I teach is contrary to what the Word of God says, then I need and want to be corrected. I pray constantly that what comes from my mouth (and my keyboard) be accurate to the Word, and that God would guide my teaching. I admit that many times my words are more heated than I intend, and for that I beg forgiveness.
It is one event, but belief and confession are not the only part of that event. Rom 10:9-10 is not more valid as Scripture than Mark 16:16. Both of them must be equally true, or else Scripture contains a falsehood (and I believe we both agree that Scripture does not have any contradictions). So if Mark 16:16 (and Acts 2:38, and 1 Pet 3:21, and others) are equally Scripture, and equally as correct as Rom 10:9-10, then both must be done (at the same time in the same event) for salvation to occur. It is not just confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in our heart, but also repenting of sin, and being baptized into Christ.
Everywhere that Paul talks about "works" he is speaking of "works of the Law", not any physical action whatsoever. He cannot be because in Rom 10:9-10 he directs everyone to perform a "work" by confessing with the mouth Jesus as Lord. Thus, it cannot be just any actions that he says do not lead to salvation. Confession and baptism lead to receiving salvation, they do not follow after having received salvation.
It is not possible for a person to believe and not be baptized, because if they believed they would be baptized. If they really are making Jesus their Lord, then they will obey His commands ("repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins"), and if they don't obey, then they really don't believe; they don't have a living effective faith (James 2:20, 22, 24, 26).
No, the disciples of John were not saved, as is pointed out when Paul meets some who were baptized only in John's baptism. They were not saved, even though they were called disciples, but they were baptized into Christ immediately and so saved at that point. Disciple does not mean saved; it means follower or student (learner).
"Make them saved" is the words I used to imply "bring them into a saved state". We cannot do anything to them spiritually. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. But we can teach them the truth that is in Scripture, and (as Peter did in Acts 10:48) order them to be baptized so that they can be saved. It matters greatly what the disciple wants. If they don't want to be saved, we cannot force them. But if they want to be saved, then they must be baptzied, for that is where Scripture says that the Holy Spirit removes our sins by the power of Jesus' blood.
dwight92070
Well-known member
Last edited:
dwight92070
Well-known member
If Jesus used the word "saved" or "salvation" to describe what happened to Zaccheus (Today, salvation has come to this house), then we KNOW that we can say also that many persons were saved during the ministry of Jesus. It is NOT mistaken in any way, even though Jesus had not yet gone to the cross. Being saved is NOT a term that's only reserved for people after the cross. It is accurate to use of people even before the cross, because Jesus Himself did it, and we follow Him.
Doug Brents
Well-known member
Down to here, I totally agree with everything you have said.
Unless Zaccheus was among the 120 in the upper room (we don't know the names of any other than the 11 plus Justus and Matthias), or was one of the 3000 who were baptized on Pentecost, he did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. He may have received it shortly thereafter, because daily there were more being saved (and thus receiving the Holy Spirit), but I believe that happens at baptism, not just through intellectual assent.
Was what the new birth? Zaccheus receiving salvation by turning back to faithfully following the Law of Moses? No, that is not the new birth of the New Covenant.
Until they were baptized into Christ, yes. Just because on Pentecost? No.
If he was only acquainted with the baptism of John, that indicates to me that he was not saved before Priscilla and Aquilla taught him more accurately. I would infer that they baptized him into Christ (since he obviously had not been baptized into Christ if he only knew the baptism of John) as part of teaching him more accurately.
The men in Acts 19:1-6 were not saved yet either. They were only baptized in John's baptism, not the baptism of the Christ. They did not have the Holy Spirit because He is received in the baptism of Christ.
This all occurred during the life of Jesus, and during His life He had the authority to forgive sin at any demonstration of faith that He chose to accept (Matt 9:6). But He is not still on Earth, and has died thereby locking His will (covenant) so it cannot be changed.
All of that happened during His life which was entirely under the Old Covenant, and so has no bearing on salvation under the New Covenant. I am positive that some of these were among the 120 in the upper room on Pentecost, but many of them may have been among the croud outside on Pentecost as well. They still needed to be baptized into Christ in the New Covenant (I do not know if the baptism of the Apostles before Jesus' death was equivelant to NT baptism or not (I would think so), but that is a moot point for us, it only would have been relevant to them).
Absolutely agree 100%. But this is not really what we are discussing. What we are discussing is the form that faith must take in the New Covenant that brings salvation to us. Under the Old Covenant it was keeping the Law. But we are freed from the Law (Jews and Gentiles alike). So, as the men asked on Pentecost, "What must we do [to be saved]?" Today, we must do the things that Scripture says LEAD TO receiveing salvation. Those things are not all found in one verse or passage, but are scattered through several books. Acts 2:38 comes closest, because the men had already believed, and so were commanded to repent and be baptized so that they could receive forgiveness.
dwight92070
Well-known member
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" James 2:21
Wait a minute. How many times was Abraham "justified"? "Justification" means "declared righteous". He offered up Isaac in Genesis 22 and James says he was justified at that time. But wasn't he ALREADY justified before that in Genesis 15: 6? "Then he believed the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." So Abraham had already been justified BEFORE he offered up Isaac.
In fact, Hebrews 11:8 tells us that Abraham had faith in God all the way back in Genesis 12, when God first called him. So wasn't he first justified at that time?
Biblically, justification occurs only one time. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:11: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God." When did that happen? When we were born again. When we were saved. We don't have to be justified over and over again.
I don't believe Abraham needed to be justified multiple times either. I believe he was actually justified when he first put his faith in God, in Genesis 12. So what does James mean when he says Abraham was justified much later, when he offered up Isaac? I don't think he means the same thing that happens when we got saved. In fact, Abraham was already "saved" at the time he offered up Isaac. He was already the "friend of God".
The word "justified" means "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable". By offering up Isaac, Abraham was showing or proving that he was (already) a righteous man, since God declared it so, long before that. He had already walked with God many years, possibly 50 or more. So in offering Isaac, Abraham was displaying just one of many good works that he performed since he was first justified or "saved".
So to compare what happens when we get saved today with what happened when Abraham offered up Isaac,
is like comparing being born again with the works performed by someone who has known the Lord for over 50 years.
We're justified at the point of our repentance and faith in Jesus. We're not justified over and over.
To compare Abraham's offering of Isaac to the work of water baptism is misguided, at the very least, and a misinterpretation of scripture.
Wait a minute. How many times was Abraham "justified"? "Justification" means "declared righteous". He offered up Isaac in Genesis 22 and James says he was justified at that time. But wasn't he ALREADY justified before that in Genesis 15: 6? "Then he believed the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." So Abraham had already been justified BEFORE he offered up Isaac.
In fact, Hebrews 11:8 tells us that Abraham had faith in God all the way back in Genesis 12, when God first called him. So wasn't he first justified at that time?
Biblically, justification occurs only one time. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:11: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God." When did that happen? When we were born again. When we were saved. We don't have to be justified over and over again.
I don't believe Abraham needed to be justified multiple times either. I believe he was actually justified when he first put his faith in God, in Genesis 12. So what does James mean when he says Abraham was justified much later, when he offered up Isaac? I don't think he means the same thing that happens when we got saved. In fact, Abraham was already "saved" at the time he offered up Isaac. He was already the "friend of God".
The word "justified" means "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable". By offering up Isaac, Abraham was showing or proving that he was (already) a righteous man, since God declared it so, long before that. He had already walked with God many years, possibly 50 or more. So in offering Isaac, Abraham was displaying just one of many good works that he performed since he was first justified or "saved".
So to compare what happens when we get saved today with what happened when Abraham offered up Isaac,
is like comparing being born again with the works performed by someone who has known the Lord for over 50 years.
We're justified at the point of our repentance and faith in Jesus. We're not justified over and over.
To compare Abraham's offering of Isaac to the work of water baptism is misguided, at the very least, and a misinterpretation of scripture.
dwight92070
Well-known member
Doug -"All of that happened during His life which was entirely under the Old Covenant, and so has no bearing on salvation under the New Covenant."
You have got to be kidding me!!! All that happened during during Jesus' lifetime, since it was entirely under the Old Covenant, has no bearing on salvation now under the New Covenant?? Then I'm not saved now, because it was because of what I read about what Jesus said and did, that I was instantly born again - (but you say that had no bearing on my salvation, because what He did and said happened under the Old Covenant)
What Jesus said and did "under the Old Covenant" has no bearing on our salvation now????? He was God in the flesh, but since He was under the Old Covenant, nothing that He did or said has any bearing on salvation now under the New Covenant??
You might as well start your own cult!
Jesus broke the Sabbath many times. Even though He was born under the Law, which mainly has to do with His parents keeping the Law, He Himself seemed to ignore the ceremonial laws. We know that He came to fulfill or end the requirement to keep the Law. Technically, the New Covenant may not have started until His death, but He seems to have "jumped the gun" on that during His life. Nine of the ten commandments were repeated in the New Covenant - all of the 9 were moral laws. Technically, even those 9 moral laws were not totally repeated in the New Covenant. Because the Law required strict penalties for violating any of those 9 - sometimes even the death penalty. But when the New Testament repeats those 9, it gives NO instructions as to what to do with those who violate them. He was not only Lord of the Sabbath, He was Lord of the entire Old Covenant.
Just like a police officer can break the law and speed, if he deems it necessary, so Jesus could (and did) violate the ceremonial laws whenever He wanted to. He touched lepers, dead bodies, people with issues of blood, etc., all the time, which according to the Law would make Him unclean, and therefore not allowed to enter the temple, yet he still entered the temple. Even though He healed those people, He touched many of them before they were healed, so according to the Law, He would still be unclean. Also, according to the Law, He should have gone through the purification process prescribed by Moses, and even offer up animal sacrifices. We have no record of Him ever doing that, thus violating those laws as well.
He not only broke the Sabbath day many times, but at least on one occasion, He even commanded another man to violate the Law. He told him to "Pick up his pallet, (a violation of the Law on the Sabbath) and go home." He defended His disciples who actually violated the Law by breaking off and eating the heads of grain on the Sabbath. He allowed an immoral woman not only to touch Him, but to wash His feet with her tears and her hair, again making Him unclean.
Tell me, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - are they in the Old Testament or the New Testament?
Apparently you must think that they should have been put in the Old Testament!!!???
Do you not realize that Jesus Himself is the embodiment of the new covenant? He fulfilled the Old Covenant and He was a "walking New Covenant". But He also told them that new wine must be put in new wineskins. He was THE example of how to live under the New Covenant. Although He taught in the temple, we have no record of Him ever coming there to offer sacrifices or even to pray!! He always prayed outside!!
Paul said, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes ..." But when did the gospel, which is the New Covenant, begin? Mark tells us, in Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Where does Mark begin in telling this gospel? With the story and message of John the Baptist. Matthew begins it with Abraham and the birth of Jesus. Luke begins it with John the Baptist and the birth of Jesus. John begins it in eternity past - In the beginning was the Word ... and then goes to John the Baptist.
The gospel, the New Covenant, includes all of these things, even though technically it started at His death.
There's an old hymn, "Tell me the story of Jesus, write on my heart every word, tell me the story most precious, sweetest that ever was heard." When God wanted to bring His Son to the earth, He also wanted to give us the words that we read in the four gospels. They are the Word of God to a dying world. We cannot consign them to an Old Covenant that is now obsolete. They described His actions, His words - they described Him. They recorded His words for ALL to have access to - to be saved.
You have got to be kidding me!!! All that happened during during Jesus' lifetime, since it was entirely under the Old Covenant, has no bearing on salvation now under the New Covenant?? Then I'm not saved now, because it was because of what I read about what Jesus said and did, that I was instantly born again - (but you say that had no bearing on my salvation, because what He did and said happened under the Old Covenant)
What Jesus said and did "under the Old Covenant" has no bearing on our salvation now????? He was God in the flesh, but since He was under the Old Covenant, nothing that He did or said has any bearing on salvation now under the New Covenant??
You might as well start your own cult!
Jesus broke the Sabbath many times. Even though He was born under the Law, which mainly has to do with His parents keeping the Law, He Himself seemed to ignore the ceremonial laws. We know that He came to fulfill or end the requirement to keep the Law. Technically, the New Covenant may not have started until His death, but He seems to have "jumped the gun" on that during His life. Nine of the ten commandments were repeated in the New Covenant - all of the 9 were moral laws. Technically, even those 9 moral laws were not totally repeated in the New Covenant. Because the Law required strict penalties for violating any of those 9 - sometimes even the death penalty. But when the New Testament repeats those 9, it gives NO instructions as to what to do with those who violate them. He was not only Lord of the Sabbath, He was Lord of the entire Old Covenant.
Just like a police officer can break the law and speed, if he deems it necessary, so Jesus could (and did) violate the ceremonial laws whenever He wanted to. He touched lepers, dead bodies, people with issues of blood, etc., all the time, which according to the Law would make Him unclean, and therefore not allowed to enter the temple, yet he still entered the temple. Even though He healed those people, He touched many of them before they were healed, so according to the Law, He would still be unclean. Also, according to the Law, He should have gone through the purification process prescribed by Moses, and even offer up animal sacrifices. We have no record of Him ever doing that, thus violating those laws as well.
He not only broke the Sabbath day many times, but at least on one occasion, He even commanded another man to violate the Law. He told him to "Pick up his pallet, (a violation of the Law on the Sabbath) and go home." He defended His disciples who actually violated the Law by breaking off and eating the heads of grain on the Sabbath. He allowed an immoral woman not only to touch Him, but to wash His feet with her tears and her hair, again making Him unclean.
Tell me, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - are they in the Old Testament or the New Testament?
Apparently you must think that they should have been put in the Old Testament!!!???
Do you not realize that Jesus Himself is the embodiment of the new covenant? He fulfilled the Old Covenant and He was a "walking New Covenant". But He also told them that new wine must be put in new wineskins. He was THE example of how to live under the New Covenant. Although He taught in the temple, we have no record of Him ever coming there to offer sacrifices or even to pray!! He always prayed outside!!
Paul said, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes ..." But when did the gospel, which is the New Covenant, begin? Mark tells us, in Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Where does Mark begin in telling this gospel? With the story and message of John the Baptist. Matthew begins it with Abraham and the birth of Jesus. Luke begins it with John the Baptist and the birth of Jesus. John begins it in eternity past - In the beginning was the Word ... and then goes to John the Baptist.
The gospel, the New Covenant, includes all of these things, even though technically it started at His death.
There's an old hymn, "Tell me the story of Jesus, write on my heart every word, tell me the story most precious, sweetest that ever was heard." When God wanted to bring His Son to the earth, He also wanted to give us the words that we read in the four gospels. They are the Word of God to a dying world. We cannot consign them to an Old Covenant that is now obsolete. They described His actions, His words - they described Him. They recorded His words for ALL to have access to - to be saved.
mailmandan
Well-known member
James is not using the word "justified" in James 2:24 to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God. (Romans 4:2-3) Works bear out the justification that already came by faith.
In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaioo" #1344 is:
1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered - *fits the context.
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
In Matthew 12:37, we read - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." This is because our words (and our works) reveal the condition of our hearts. Words/works are evidence for, or against a man being in a state of righteousness.
God is said to have been justified by those who were baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29). This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God IS righteous. Notice that the NIV reads, “acknowledged that God's way was right.." The ESV reads, “they declared God just.” This is the "sense" in which God was “justified.” He was shown to be righteous.
Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified/vindicated/shown to be right by her deeds."
It is through faith "in Jesus Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-24) *Perfect Harmony*
I often hear works-salvationists cite John 3:36 in the NASB and "stress" the word "obey" to imply that we are saved "by" obedience/works and end up conflating believing with obedience/works which "follow" believing. In regard to "does not obey the Son" in the New American Standard translation of the Bible, this does not mean that receiving eternal life is received based on the merits of our obedience/works which "follow" believing in the Son but obey by choosing to believe in the Son.
If John wanted to make obedience the central theme in salvation here, he would have said: "He who believes and obeys the Son has eternal life," but that is not what John said. To obey the Son here is to choose to believe in the Son.
The King James Version renders this same verse as: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that "believeth not the Son" shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. The NIV says "rejects the Son" and the HCSB says, "refuses to believe in the Son." To refuse to believe in the Son is to disobey, rebel, be disloyal and refuse conformity. Strong’s definition of apeitheo is "to disbelieve willfully and perversely." *In the context of 3:36, to "not obey the Son" means to reject the Son by refusing to believe in the Son.
So you deny every verse which does not mention water baptism?
Doug Brents
Well-known member
Why was Abraham justified in Gen 15:6? Because he gave intellectual assent? No, because he had faith which produced actions of obedience in keeping with his belief. It was not his thoughts that God rewarded with righteousness, but his faith.
Correct, and when does being born again occur? For us in the NT, it occurs during water baptism (Rom 6:1-4, Col 2:11-14).
His offering of Isaac was another example of his faith in God, and yes, it began when he was called out of Ur. But we are not told that he was justified when he was called out and obeyed.
Abraham did not "prove or show" that he was righteous. He was declared righteous by God, meaning that all his sins were wiped out by God because of his faith. Just sacrificing Isaac was not the only action of faith that Abraham showed, but it is probably the biggest. The point James is making is that faith, both before and after salvation (justification) requires action. If there is no action, then there is no faith, and thus no justification. If faith is not present then a person will not be justified.
You misrepresent what I said. The salvation events depicted during Jesus lifetime were all based on HIS authority to forgive sin wherever He saw faith exhibited. It does not represent what is required under the New Covenant because it was not bound by the New Covenant.
When a person is alive, he can distribute his wealth in any way he chooses, and he can change his "will" as much as he wants before he dies. But after he dies, the last and most recent will that he has made governs his estate and it cannot be changed, amended, or altered in any way. That is what Jesus was doing in these events. He was giving away His wealth in whatever manner was appropriate in the moment and consistent with God's desires. But after Jesus died, the New Covenant was bound and sealed, and cannot be changed.
No, He broke the traditions of the Pharisees, and the "hedge" of rules they placed around the Law, but He never broke the sabbath, because that would have been a sin, and Jesus NEVER sinned.
That is because the Law was not only God's moral law, but also the Law for governing the theocracy of Israel. We do not have a theocracy today, but are a Kingdom apart from the governments of the World. We are told to keep the laws of the land in which we live, and the rulers appointed over us, but not when those laws conflict with the Law of God.
We do not have record of Him going through the purification process, or offering sacrifices, but that does not mean that He did not do so. I believe that He did do these things, because I believe that He did not sin, and to fail to obey the Laws as written in Exodus through Deuteronomy would be sin. That does not mean that He had to keep the rules and traditions that he Pharisees devised as a hedge around the Law. Keeping these traditions was one of the things He preached most strongly against.
None of those things were violations of the Law. They were violations of the traditions of the Pharisees.
No, they are the Gospels of Jesus and should be part of the New Testament, because they record the establishment of the New Covenant. But the time during which they took place was still under the Old Covenant. Just as Genesis is part of the Old Testament, but some of the time in Genesis is not part of the Old Covenant. It depicts what lead up to the establishment of the Old Covenant with Abraham. And then Exodus depicts the formalization of the Old Covenant through Moses.
Correct, we do not have any record of His actually going there. But we KNOW that He had to have, because He kept the Old Covenant perfectly. If He had not, then He would have sinned, and we both agree (at least I hope we do) that He did not sin.
I know that song very well. Love to hear it sung when I was younger. I have always preferred an acapella worship service. More on that later maybe.
All of Scripture is still relevant, but much of it occurred during a time that is not relevant to us today. Just as the laws of Germany changed from before WWII to after WWII, but it was the same people living in the same place. So too with the change from OT to NT. But the requirements from one side of those changes do not impact the requirements on the other side. Jesus' life and teachings are very relevant to us today, but how He lived is not (in some ways), because He lived under the OT keeping the OT Law, and obeying the requirements of the OT commands. We do not live under those laws anymore, so the details of His keeping those laws would be confusing to some today; I believe that is why those details of His life are not recorded.
dwight92070
Well-known member
John 5:8 "Jesus said to him, "Get up, pick up your pallet and walk."
Jeremiah 17:21 "Thus says the Lord, 'Take heed to yourselves, and do not carry any load on the sabbath day or bring anything in through the gates of Jerusalem."
Okay, now tell me again that Jesus did not break the sabbath. This was not the Pharisees "hedge" around the law. This was God's commandment. Jesus commanded the lame man to violate God's command that we read in Jeremiah 17:21. By doing that, He broke the law Himself.
No, breaking the Law was not a sin for Him - He was above the Law. Not only that, but He came to do away with (or fulfill) the need to keep any of the ceremonial laws, which includes the Sabbath.
Jeremiah 17:21 "Thus says the Lord, 'Take heed to yourselves, and do not carry any load on the sabbath day or bring anything in through the gates of Jerusalem."
Okay, now tell me again that Jesus did not break the sabbath. This was not the Pharisees "hedge" around the law. This was God's commandment. Jesus commanded the lame man to violate God's command that we read in Jeremiah 17:21. By doing that, He broke the law Himself.
No, breaking the Law was not a sin for Him - He was above the Law. Not only that, but He came to do away with (or fulfill) the need to keep any of the ceremonial laws, which includes the Sabbath.
Grace ambassador
Well-known member
op: "works salvation"?
Are you there, still around?
Now that we have nearly 1000 posts out of our systems, let's prayerfully and
Carefully Examine God's Word, Rightly Divided [only 29 posts *], shall we?:
His Words:
"By Grace Through faith" (Eph 2:8-9) For God's Eternal Salvation, Today, simply means?:
God's ↑ Part ....... our ↑ part, Confirmed by All The Plain And Clear Scriptures That Christ
Revealed [ In The Mystery (Rom 16:25; 1Co 2:7; Eph 1:9, 3:3, 4, 9, 6:19; Col 1:26) ] To Paul?:
Results of God's Grace, Mercy, and Love when we "trust, believe, and have 100%
faith" In Him, His Death, Burial, and Resurrection, According To The Scriptures
(1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Ephesians 1:12-14; 1Timothy 1:14-16):
All According To The Previously "Hid In God" Revelation Of The Mystery,
(Rom 16:25; 1Co 2:7; Eph 1:9, 3:3, 4, 9, 6:19; Col 1:26) to Paul, To The ONE Body
Of Christ, with ONE and Only ONE [ Spiritual ] Baptism, Which Should Be...:
Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):
...and Not Ever mixed up [ in Confusion ] with prophecy / covenants / law to
Twelve apostles, For Twelve tribes of Israel, with "water baptism For The
Remission of their sins!" with all these "faith PLUS works" Commandments:
Again, it must be asked: the seemingly Unanswerable [ no one will touch ] question:
Which am I supposed to follow?:
Or:
Amen.
* Seems to me that homogenization / textual criticism resulting in [ "Big Argument" ]
Confusion, of God's Word Of Truth is 3,000% [ almost 1000 posts] More preferable than
The "Simplicity Of Christ" 'Right Division' [29 posts] Of It, eh?
May The Gracious and Merciful Lord Of Glory Help us All! Amen?:
-----------------------------------------
And AMEN!
Fair enough question - @Seabass? Sorry, I'm late
Are you there, still around?Now that we have nearly 1000 posts out of our systems, let's prayerfully and
Carefully Examine God's Word, Rightly Divided [only 29 posts *], shall we?:
Precious friend, thank you - key words? Why would God "Want us to Pay Attention to
His Words:
"in Paul's 'Inspired Of God' letters"? Paul says Twice: "What Saith The Scriptures?":
"By Grace Through faith" (Eph 2:8-9) For God's Eternal Salvation, Today, simply means?:
God's ↑ Part ....... our ↑ part, Confirmed by All The Plain And Clear Scriptures That Christ
Revealed [ In The Mystery (Rom 16:25; 1Co 2:7; Eph 1:9, 3:3, 4, 9, 6:19; Col 1:26) ] To Paul?:
1) "Therefore we conclude that a man Is Justified By faith Without the
deeds of the law." (Rom 3:28, 5:1 cp Gal 2:16, 3:11, 24)
2) "For By Grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
It Is The [ Free ] Gift Of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
(Eph 2:8-9 cp Rom 3:24: "Justified Freely By His Grace")
3) "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, But According to
His Mercy He Saved us, By The Washing of Regeneration, and Renewing
of The Holy Ghost; Which He Shed on us Abundantly Through Jesus Christ
our Saviour; That Being Justified By His Grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life." (Tit 3:5-7 cp )
Results of God's Grace, Mercy, and Love when we "trust, believe, and have 100%
faith" In Him, His Death, Burial, and Resurrection, According To The Scriptures
(1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Ephesians 1:12-14; 1Timothy 1:14-16):
"To The Praise Of The Glory Of His Grace, Wherein He Hath Made us
Accepted In The Beloved. In Whom we Have Redemption Through His
Blood, The Forgiveness of sins, According To The Riches Of His Grace"
(Eph 1:6-7)
All According To The Previously "Hid In God" Revelation Of The Mystery,
(Rom 16:25; 1Co 2:7; Eph 1:9, 3:3, 4, 9, 6:19; Col 1:26) to Paul, To The ONE Body
Of Christ, with ONE and Only ONE [ Spiritual ] Baptism, Which Should Be...:
Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):
...and Not Ever mixed up [ in Confusion ] with prophecy / covenants / law to
Twelve apostles, For Twelve tribes of Israel, with "water baptism For The
Remission of their sins!" with all these "faith PLUS works" Commandments:
1) Repent (change mind about sin/agree With God "it is Wrong!") or perish
(Luke 13:3,5, 24:47 Mark 1:4)
+
2) believe the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 24:14; Mark 1:14,15)
+
3) be water baptized "For the remission of sin" (Mark 1:4 Luke 3:3, 7:29:30, 24:47;
Act 2:38)
+
4) "show works meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8), because,
+
5) "to the twelve tribes of Israel," "faith Without works is dead"
(James 1:1, 2:17, 20, 26)
+
6) "keep the commandments" to "enter life" (Matthew 19:17)
+
7) "one thing thou lackest...sell All / take up cross / follow Jesus"
(Mark 10:17-23)
---------------------------------------------Again, it must be asked: the seemingly Unanswerable [ no one will touch ] question:
Which am I supposed to follow?:
A) Do I follow Christ, and the doctrine He Spoke as The:
Humble Christ, on the earth, To Israel, 12 apostles, Under The Law/covenants
/Prophecy:
or:B) Do I follow Him As The Risen And Glorified "Head Of His Church" and ask:
I have decided to Follow ( The Heavenly ) Risen and Glorified LORD Jesus, in
His "Revelation Of The Mystery/Grace" To Paul?
Or:
C) Do I speak after following the Many, who homogenize A) + B) into
Massive Confusion? *
Amen.
* Seems to me that homogenization / textual criticism resulting in [ "Big Argument" ]
Confusion, of God's Word Of Truth is 3,000% [ almost 1000 posts] More preferable than
The "Simplicity Of Christ" 'Right Division' [29 posts] Of It, eh?
May The Gracious and Merciful Lord Of Glory Help us All! Amen?:
-----------------------------------------
And AMEN!
Last edited:
Similar threads
