"Works Salvation"

[Doug Brents]

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.

Is a pallet a "load"? No. Read Jeremiah 17:21 carefully. What is it prohibiting? It is prohibiting doing commerce: bringing anything (from the fields) in through the gates of the city (to the markets there). If Jesus ordered a person to break the sabbath, then He would have sinned, but He did not sin (or He cannot be our savior). Jesus telling a man to pick up his pallet was not a sin, nor was the man sinning in obeying the command. As Jesus said, it is not violating the sabbath to pull an animal from a pit, it is not violating the sabbath to eat the heads of grain as you walk along. Those things violate the Pharisee's man-made commandments, but not God's commands.

 

[dwight92070]

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.

Doug - Is a pallet a "load"? No. Read Jeremiah 17:21 carefully. What is it prohibiting? It is prohibiting doing commerce: bringing anything (from the fields) in through the gates of the city (to the markets there). If Jesus ordered a person to break the sabbath, then He would have sinned, but He did not sin (or He cannot be our savior). Jesus telling a man to pick up his pallet was not a sin, nor was the man sinning in obeying the command. As Jesus said, it is not violating the sabbath to pull an animal from a pit, it is not violating the sabbath to eat the heads of grain as you walk along. Those things violate the Pharisee's man-made commandments, but not God's commands.

Dwight - Wow, you'll stretch anything to make it fit, won't you? The truth is staring right at you, yet you can't make yourself acknowledge it. That's indoctrination. You read it carefully, it says "do not carry ANY load on the sabbath day OR bring anything in through the gates ..." Yes, a pallet does fall under "any load". The 2nd half of the statement could refer to commerce, but NOT the first half.

Dwight - This is further proven in verse 22 - "You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, as I commanded your forefathers." A woman could not bring a load of laundry out of the house. A man could not bring trash out of the house. This does NOT HAVE TO BE commerce, as you mistakenly assert that it is. These verses do NOT say that it is ONLY commerce. You say that, without any proof whatsoever.
You're only fooling yourself - it's obvious Jesus broke the Sabbath without sin, since He was Lord over the Sabbath.

Dwight - In fact, Jesus said that both He and His Father work on the Sabbath, just like they did every other day.
"For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, 'My Father is working until now (the Sabbath), and I Myself am working. (On the Sabbath - He had just healed the lame man on the pallet.) John 5:16-17
Jesus ADMITTED that He was working ON THE SABBATH, just like His Father was.

Dwight - Also the apostle John told us that Jesus broke the Sabbath.
John is speaking here - "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." John 5:18
Most likely you accept the lie that Jesus violated their understanding of what breaking the Sabbath was, but He didn't actually violate the Sabbath.
That's a lie. John SAID HE DID. John also said that He was making Himself equal with God, by calling God His own Father. John did not say that according to their views, Jesus was making Himself equal with God. John said that Jesus WAS making Himself equal with God.

You also assume that there's no mention of Jesus offering animal sacrifices, because that would confuse the readers. Actually, no, that would clarify your assertion that Jesus actually did keep the Law. But we have NO evidence that He did so ALL THE TIME. What we see in scripture is that He appears to obey the Law at times, like attending festivals, Passover meal, etc. But at other times, He violates the Law by breaking the Sabbath, not following purification laws after touching an unclean person, not taking animals to the temple to be sacrificed, etc. - never the moral laws, but only the ceremonial laws, which seems to be hinting that He would do away with those laws, by fulfilling them on the cross.

 

[Doug Brents]

Wow, you'll stretch anything to make it fit, won't you? The truth is staring right at you, yet you can't make yourself acknowledge it. That's indoctrination. You read it carefully, it says "do not carry ANY load on the sabbath day OR bring anything in through the gates ..." Yes, a pallet does fall under "any load". The 2nd half of the statement could refer to commerce, but NOT the first half.

This is further proven in verse 22 - "You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, as I commanded your forefathers." A woman could not bring a load of laundry out of the house. A man could not bring trash out of the house. This does NOT have to be commerce, as you speculate that it is. These verses do NOT say that it is ONLY commerce. You say that, without any proof whatsoever.
You're only fooling yourself - it's obvious Jesus broke the Sabbath without sin, since He was Lord over the Sabbath.

Are you trying to say that Jesus is not the Messiah? Because if He sinned, or ordered others to sin (which is a sin), then He cannot be the Messiah, cannot be the source of our forgiveness, and cannot be God.

The examples given here are all examples of doing a person's job, "working". Women work in the home, cooking, cleaning, tending to the affairs of the home, etc.; men work in the fields, farming, tending livestock, hunting, etc.

In fact, Jesus said that both He and His Father work on the Sabbath, just like they did every other day.
"For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, 'My Father is working until now (the Sabbath), and I Myself am working. (On the Sabbath - He had just healed the lame man on the pallet.) John 5:16-17
Jesus ADMITTED that He was working ON THE SABBATH, just like His Father was.

Also the apostle John told us that Jesus broke the Sabbath.
John is speaking here - "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." John 5:18

Was He really blaspheming? No, He really is God, so His claim to be God was not blasphemy. But the Pharisees "THOUGHT" He was blaspheming. Just as they "THOUGHT" He was breaking the sabbath. As I said before, if He really was breaking the sabbath, then He was sinning and cannot be our savior, the Messiah.

Most likely you accept the lie that Jesus violated their understanding of what breaking the Sabbath was, but He didn't actually violate the Sabbath.
That's a lie. John SAID HE DID. John also said that He was making Himself equal with God, by calling God His own Father. John did not say that according to their views, Jesus was making Himself equal with God. John said that Jesus WAS making Himself equal with God.

Yes, He was making Himself equal to God, because He is. And only He could make that claim and not be blaspheming. In EVERY OTHER CASE the Pharisees would have been correct in stoning a man who said that. But He was not blaspheming, because HE IS GOD!

 

[dwight92070]

No, I never suggested that He is not the Messiah - you are the one bringing that up. Nor did I suggest that He sinned - again those are your words.
You read what I said, but you're ignoring it. He was Lord of the Sabbath, so He could keep or not keep it. No sin would be involved since He was God in the flesh. Just like we are never told that He went through the purification process after touching dead people and unclean people. He didn't need to. He was Lord over all the Law. Nor do we ever see Him bringing an animal to the temple to be sacrificed because of His touching unclean bodies. He was Lord over all sacrifices, so it wasn't necessary for Him to make any sacrifice except for His own crucifixion. Your pure speculation that that would confuse people is a contradiction. If God had directed Jesus to obey those ceremonial laws, it would actually make everything much more clear - then we would KNOW that He always DID keep the Law.

That's exactly what I said. Men and women were doing their daily work - you call it a job, to make it seem like they were participating in commerce, as you call it. Then you fabricate an interpretation of that verse, saying that God was only forbidding commerce on the Sabbath, and therefore the healed man was not violating the Law. Poppycock! ANY and ALL work was forbidden on the Sabbath, whether it was commerce or not. In vs. 21, God forbid "carrying ANY load" on the Sabbath, which the healed man was doing. In vs. 22, they were not to "do ANY work", which the healed man was doing.

As John truthfully said, He was "making Himself equal with God" by "calling God His own Father." Even so, John truthfully said that "He ... was breaking the Sabbath." Jesus clearly told them that His Father was working until now (that was the Sabbath day) and that He Himself was working (on the Sabbath day), which was forbidden. So even Jesus acknowledged that He worked on the Sabbath Day. But, of course, you can't acknowledge that, because that doesn't fit your doctrine.

 

[Doug Brents]

No, I never suggested that He is not the Messiah - you are the one bringing that up. Nor did I suggest that He sinned - again those are your words.

I only suggest that is what you are implying because you say that Jesus violated the sabbath. If He violated the sabbath, then He sinned. If He sinned then He cannot be the Messiah. So either He is Messiah, or He violated the sabbath, you cannot have both.

You read what I said, but you're ignoring it. He was Lord of the Sabbath, so He could keep or not keep it.

No. He was subject to the OT Law. He was not above the Law. If He failed in any way to keep the Law (just as every other man born under the Law is required to do but is incapable of doing), then He would be guilty of breaking the Law, and so be a lawbreaker.

No sin would be involved since He was God in the flesh. Just like we are never told that He went through the purification process after touching dead people and unclean people. He didn't need to. He was Lord over all the Law.

Being "Lord over all the Law" does not mean He can break the Law. Just as with police and judges in the world today, we hold them to an even more strict code of conduct. They cannot break the law, or they must be brought to account. So too with Jesus. He had to keep the Law perfectly, or He could not have been our Messiah.

Nor do we ever see Him bringing an animal to the temple to be sacrificed because of His touching unclean bodies. He was Lord over all sacrifices, so it wasn't necessary for Him to make any sacrifice except for His own crucifixion. Your pure speculation that that would confuse people is a contradiction. If God had directed Jesus to obey those ceremonial laws, it would actually make everything much more clear - then we would KNOW that He always DID keep the Law.

We know that He kept the Law, because we are told that He kept the Law perfectly (Matt 5:17-18, Heb 4:15). If He had failed to keep even the smallest part of the Law, then He would have been a lawbreaker, and guilty of the whole of the Law (James 2:10).

That's exactly what I said. Men and women were doing their daily work - you call it a job, to make it seem like they were participating in commerce, as you call it. Then you fabricate an interpretation of that verse, saying that God was only forbidding commerce on the Sabbath, and therefore the healed man was not violating the Law. Poppycock! ANY and ALL work was forbidden on the Sabbath, whether it was commerce or not. In vs. 21, God forbid "carrying ANY load" on the Sabbath, which the healed man was doing. In vs. 22, they were not to "do ANY work", which the healed man was doing.

I overlooked something significant, and I hope you will forgive me. You will notice that Jeremiah is not one of the books of the LAW. The additional commands to the Kings of Jerusalem and to all the inhabitants in Jeremiah were not commands to all the Jews. They were commands for that people of that time. The Law gives no details on what "work" is. It just says to not do any work.

As John truthfully said, He was "making Himself equal with God" by "calling God His own Father." Even so, John truthfully said that "He ... was breaking the Sabbath." Jesus clearly told them that His Father was working until now (that was the Sabbath day) and that He Himself was working (on the Sabbath day), which was forbidden. So even Jesus acknowledged that He worked on the Sabbath Day. But, of course, you can't acknowledge that, because that doesn't fit your doctrine.

John truthfully said that the Pharisees were accusing Jesus because they thought the things He was doing violated the Law (or at least the "hedge" or Mishnah they had put around the Law). The fact that God the Father was working on the sabbath is immaterial, God did not say that He could not work on the sabbath. And Jesus was "working" on the sabbath too. But He was not violating the commands in the Law, just the commands that the Pharisees had created for themselves to define what God meant.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Exo 20:8-11
This is what the Law said about the sabbath. Nothing here precludes a man from carrying His bed, nor does it preclude one man from healing another man.

 

[dwight92070]

Doug - "So either He is Messiah, or He violated the sabbath, you cannot have both."

Dwight - Why? Because you say so? What does THE SCRIPTURE say? Jesus said He worked on the Sabbath Day just like His Father did, even though the Law commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath.
The apostle John tells us that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Yet He never ceased being the Messiah.

Dwight -How could the Lord of the Sabbath not be above the Sabbath? In fact, how could the Lord of the Sabbath not be above the entire Law?
Doug - "He was not above the Law."???
Dwight - Think what you're saying. The Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, was not above the Law?? Was God Himself above the Law? Of course He was. Was God Himself subject to the Law? Of course not. Wasn't Jesus God in the flesh?? Didn't He make Himself equal with God?
Dwight - John the Baptist said, "He who comes from above is above ALL." Does that include the Law? Of course it does!!
Dwight - Police cannot break the law?? I don't know what country you live in, but the police can go down the highway at 100mph, if they deem it necessary, which violates the speed limit law. At least in that respect, they can break the law.
Dwight - He fulfilled the Law, thus removing the requirement for the Jews to keep it. We Gentiles were NEVER required to keep it.
Dwight - Technically Jeremiah is not part of the Law? Look again at Jeremiah 17:22:
"You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, AS I COMMANDED YOUR FOREFATHERS." When did He command their forefathers? Exodus 20 - It's the SAME Law found in the ten commandments.
So this was the SAME command as we see in Exodus 20, only now Jeremiah gives us a little more detail that we did not see in Exodus 20. This was a reiteration of the original Sabbath day command, only now with more details. Obviously, the details were there from the beginning, only not specifically written in our Bible. But God uses Jeremiah to show us what was part of the original Sabbath day law. This was NOT only for Jerusalem, it was for ALL JEWS, just as Exodus 20 was.
Good try, but no cigar.
No, John DOES NOT say the Pharisees THOUGHT He was breaking the Sabbath - that's adding your speculation - John said that HE WAS breaking the Sabbath. So do we go by your speculation or by what John said?

 

[Doug Brents]

Why? Because you say so? What does THE SCRIPTURE say? Jesus said He worked on the Sabbath Day just like His Father did, even though the Law commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath.
The apostle John tells us that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Yet He never ceased being the Messiah.

No, John does not say He broke the sabbath. He says that the Pharisees accused Him of breaking the sabbath. They believed that His breaking their own rules violated God's Law. But it does not.

But if Jesus had broken God's Law, that would have been sin. And if He sinned, then He could not have been the Messiah. Because for the sacrifice to be valuable, effective, worthy, it MUST be without blemish. If He sinned, then He is in the same boat as we are: lost, condemned, fallen.

Dwight -How could the Lord of the Sabbath not be above the Sabbath? In fact, how could the Lord of the Sabbath not be above the entire Law?

Because, as Gal 4:4-5 says, Jesus was born under the Law (not above it) so that He could redeem those under the Law. If He were above the Law, then He could not have fulfilled it. He had to performed Man's part of the Covenant PERFECTLY.

Dwight - Think what you're saying. The Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, was not above the Law?? Was God Himself above the Law? Of course He was. Was God Himself subject to the Law? Of course not. Wasn't Jesus God in the flesh?? Didn't He make Himself equal with God?

Is it JUST for the Lord of Lords and King of Kings to break His own Law? No. God cannot break His own Law without violating His own perfection. When Jesus was born of woman, He became subject to the Law.

Dwight - Police cannot break the law?? I don't know what country you live in, but the police can go down the highway at 100mph, if they deem it necessary, which violates the speed limit law. At least in that respect, they can break the law.

Yes, the police "can", but they "must not" violate the Law, or they no longer are worthy of upholding the law.
An officer driving over the speed limit when he deems it necessary is an example of him operating on a different set of rules. Police officers have a different set of rules that allow them to speed, run traffic lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, etc. when they are in pursuit of a suspected criminal that is running from them. This is an authority they have that must only be exercised under certain circumstances. It does not make them "above the law", and if they do exercise this authority without proper cause, then they must be held accountable and removed from service.

Dwight - Technically Jeremiah is not part of the Law? Look again at Jeremiah 17:22:
"You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, AS I COMMANDED YOUR FOREFATHERS." When did He command their forefathers? Exodus 20 - It's the SAME Law found in the ten commandments.
So this was the SAME command as we see in Exodus 20, only now Jeremiah gives us a little more detail that we did not see in Exodus 20. This was a reiteration of the original Sabbath day command, only now with more details. Obviously, the details were there from the beginning, only not specifically written in our Bible. But God uses Jeremiah to show us what was part of the original Sabbath day law. This was NOT only for Jerusalem, it was for ALL JEWS, just as Exodus 20 was.

The command in Exo 20 is to keep the sabbath Holy. It does not say anything about carrying loads, or how much work is "too much" or anything like that. Read Exo 20 again. And then reread what you posted above from Jer 17:22. What part of Jer 17 was part of Exo 20? "Keep the sabbath holy" is the only part that was "as I commanded your forefathers".

No, John DOES NOT say the Pharisees THOUGHT He was breaking the Sabbath - that's adding your speculation - John said that HE WAS breaking the Sabbath. So do we go by your speculation or by what John said?

John did not say that Jesus broke the sabbath. John says that they accused Jesus of breaking the sabbath. John says that because He had done things on the sabbath that they considered sinful, they sought to bring Him in. And when He said things that made them understand that He was saying that He was God, they sought Him even more. But He did not violate the sabbath (just their own additions to the Law), and He really is God (thus no blasphemy), so they had no real cause to accuse Him (other than that His actions ate into their own power and authority).

 

[dwight92070]

Everything you

No, John does not say He broke the sabbath. He says that the Pharisees accused Him of breaking the sabbath. They believed that His breaking their own rules violated God's Law. But it does not.

Dwight - That's not what John says. That's what you say.

But if Jesus had broken God's Law, that would have been sin. And if He sinned, then He could not have been the Messiah. Because for the sacrifice to be valuable, effective, worthy, it MUST be without blemish. If He sinned, then He is in the same boat as we are: lost, condemned, fallen.

Dwight - That's not what the Bible says. You made that up.

Because, as Gal 4:4-5 says, Jesus was born under the Law (not above it) so that He could redeem those under the Law. If He were above the Law, then He could not have fulfilled it. He had to performed Man's part of the Covenant PERFECTLY.

Dwight - He was born under the Law. That only shows that His parents kept the Law. It says nothing about Him keeping the Law. When He was 12, He did not tell His parents, "Didn't you know that I must be about the business of Moses' Law?" No, He said, "Didn't you know that I must be about My Father's business?" He did not come to keep the Law every day of His life. He came to free the Jews and Gentiles from the Law and from our sins.

Is it JUST for the Lord of Lords and King of Kings to break His own Law? No. God cannot break His own Law without violating His own perfection. When Jesus was born of woman, He became subject to the Law.

Dwight - Who are you to say what God can or cannot do? Read Exodus 20 and show me where He gave those Laws to Himself.

Dwight - He never gave the Law to Himself. He gave it to the children of Israel, including Joseph and Mary, but NOT to Jesus. He who is from above is above all. Jesus was ABOVE the LAW, according to John the Baptist, even as a new born baby. He was subject to His parents, who were subject to the Law. But as He grew up, He knew that He Himself was only subject to His Father, not the Law of Moses. He knew that even at the age of 12. Yes, He submitted to His parents until He left home, but then He was subject only to the Father, NOT the Law.

Yes, the police "can", but they "must not" violate the Law, or they no longer are worthy of upholding the law.
An officer driving over the speed limit when he deems it necessary is an example of him operating on a different set of rules. Police officers have a different set of rules that allow them to speed, run traffic lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, etc. when they are in pursuit of a suspected criminal that is running from them. This is an authority they have that must only be exercised under certain circumstances. It does not make them "above the law", and if they do exercise this authority without proper cause, then they must be held accountable and removed from service.

Dwight - I can't believe that you would nitpick about this point. But then, you nitpick on every other scriptural point that I make, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You know the point I'm making here, yet you even have to argue about that. Police have the authority in the course of their duty to break certain laws. Jesus ALWAYS had the authority to violate the Law, because He was Lord of ALL at His birth. But He chose to submit to His parents.

The command in Exo 20 is to keep the sabbath Holy. It does not say anything about carrying loads, or how much work is "too much" or anything like that. Read Exo 20 again. And then reread what you posted above from Jer 17:22. What part of Jer 17 was part of Exo 20? "Keep the sabbath holy" is the only part that was "as I commanded your forefathers".

Dwight - So you're saying that God changed the Sabbath Law from what He said in Exodus 20 to what He told Jeremiah and the Jews in Jeremiah 17:21-22? God is speaking in these two verses (Thus says the Lord) God says that the instructions here in these two verses are the SAME "as I commanded your forefathers." No, nothing was changed. Exodus 20 gave a list of the ten commandments. In Jeremiah God allows us to see that there were more details in the Sabbath command that were given to Israel, but not recorded in Exodus.

Dwight -This exact thing happened when you compare Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15, which is sometimes called "The second law". In Exodus 20:11, God tells them why He made the Sabbath day: 1. "because in six days He made the heaven and the earth ... and rested on the seventh day". But He gives a different reason in Deuteronomy 5:15: 2. "You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought you out of there ... therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day."

Dwight - So which is it, 1 or 2? Obviously BOTH are true. One recorded part of what God said in Exodus, the other recorded part of what God said in Deut. The same is true with Ex. 20 and Jeremiah 17. They are BOTH correct. They were NOT to carry ANY load or do ANY work on the Sabbath day, both in Ex. 20 AND in Jere. 17. Jesus commanded the lame man to violate that law, thereby violating the law Himself.

John did not say that Jesus broke the sabbath.

Dwight - That's exactly what John said - "... because He not only was breaking the Sabbath. ..."

John says that they accused Jesus of breaking the sabbath.

Dwight - The word "accused" is not even there in John 5:18, so obviously that assertion is also wrong.

But He did not violate the sabbath

Dwight - That's wrong. He DID violate the Sabbath.

(just their own additions to the Law)

Dwight - TOTAL speculation. Those words also are not found anywhere in John 5:18

 

[Doug Brents]

That's not what John says. That's what you say.

That is your opinion of what John says, and it is what the words appear to say, but it is not what is implied in the language.
Have you seen "My Cousin Vinnie"? I do not recommend the movie because it has a lot of bad language, but if you do watch it, or if you already have, there is a scene where the boys are being questioned about the murder and one of the boys says, "I shot the clerk?" "I shot the clerk?". But later, during the trial, the questioning officer on the stand says that the boy said, "I shot the clerk." "I shot the clerk." Same exact words, but different inflection on them and different meaning altogether. Same situation here. Because the Pharisees believed that Jesus had violated the sabbath and committed blasphemy, they sought Him for committing those crimes. But He did not commit those crimes, He was innocent (as the boys were) and so in their minds He was already guilty and demanded punishment.

That's not what the Bible says. You made that up.

No, I did not make that up. Every sacrifice commanded in the OT was to be of the best, first, highest quality, without blemish, without stain, pure, etc. If Jesus had the stain of sin, He would not have been a fit sacrifice to take away the sin of the world.

He was born under the Law. That only shows that His parents kept the Law. It says nothing about Him keeping the Law. When He was 12, He did not tell His parents, "Didn't you know that I must be about the business of Moses' Law?" No, He said, "Didn't you know that I must be about My Father's business?" He did not come to keep the Law every day of His life. He came to free the Jews and Gentiles from the Law and from our sins.

What is the ONLY way to free them from the Law? To fulfill the Law. If He was to remove the Law, He had to fulfill the contract (Covenant) that contained the Law. And to fulfill it, He had to keep it perfectly, without any violation of even the smallest, tiniest part of a command. If He failed in even one part of one command, then He would have been a Law breaker, and guilty of sin just as all the rest of humanity (James 2:9-10).

Who are you to say what God can or cannot do? Read Exodus 20 and show me where He gave those Laws to Himself.

He did not give the Law to Himself, but when He came as a man, born under the Law, Jesus became subject to the Law as given by God.

He never gave the Law to Himself. He gave it to the children of Israel, including Joseph and Mary, but NOT to Jesus. He who is from above is above all. Jesus was ABOVE the LAW, according to John the Baptist, even as a new born baby. He was subject to His parents, who were subject to the Law. But as He grew up, He knew that He Himself was only subject to His Father, not the Law of Moses. He knew that even at the age of 12. Yes, He submitted to His parents until He left home, but then He was subject only to the Father, NOT the Law.

Did the Father give the Law? Yes. So then, if Jesus was subject to the the Father, and the Father gave the Law to the Jews, then Jesus as a Jew was subject to the Law given by God to the Jews.

I can't believe that you would nitpick about this point. But then, you nitpick on every other scriptural point that I make, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You know the point I'm making here, yet you even have to argue about that. Police have the authority in the course of their duty to break certain laws. Jesus ALWAYS had the authority to violate the Law, because He was Lord of ALL at His birth. But He chose to submit to His parents.

This is a very important point. He had the POWER, but not the authority, to break the Law. He was not above the Law, because He became a little lower than even the Angels. He was born under the Law, subject to the Law, so that He could save those who were subject to the Law.

So you're saying that God changed the Sabbath Law from what He said in Exodus 20 to what He told Jeremiah and the Jews in Jeremiah 17:21-22? God is speaking in these two verses (Thus says the Lord) God says that the instructions here in these two verses are the SAME "as I commanded your forefathers." No, nothing was changed. Exodus 20 gave a list of the ten commandments. In Jeremiah God allows us to see that there were more details in the Sabbath command that were given to Israel, but not recorded in Exodus.

So Moses, the writer of Exodus, who received the Law directly from God, the 10 commandments which were written by God's own hand, did not record them accurately but left parts out? NO.
The details of not carrying anything in or out was a detail included in Jeremiah, but not part of the original command in the Law given by God. Yes, to the men of Jerusalem to whom Jeremiah was speaking, those additional details were the command of God. But they were not part of the Law of Moses, under which Jesus was born, and which was part of the Old Covenant that He came to fulfill.

Dwight -This exact thing happened when you compare Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15, which is sometimes called "The second law". In Exodus 20:11, God tells them why He made the Sabbath day: 1. "because in six days He made the heaven and the earth ... and rested on the seventh day". But He gives a different reason in Deuteronomy 5:15: 2. "You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought you out of there ... therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day."

Dwight - So which is it, 1 or 2? Obviously BOTH are true. One recorded part of what God said in Exodus, the other recorded part of what God said in Deut. The same is true with Ex. 20 and Jeremiah 17. They are BOTH correct. They were NOT to carry ANY load or do ANY work on the Sabbath day, both in Ex. 20 AND in Jere. 17. Jesus commanded the lame man to violate that law, thereby violating the law Himself.

Both of the reasons for keeping the sabbath are valid. But the keeping of the sabbath was not changed between the two, just the additional reason for keeping it. Jeremiah adds details for the keeping of the sabbath that were not given in the Law. Those details were not binding on David when he kept the sabbath, and they were not binding on Jesus when He kept the sabbath.

That's exactly what John said - "... because He not only was breaking the Sabbath. ..."

Read the context of that statement. The Pharisees were seeking Jesus. Why? Because in their twisted religiosity, Jesus was breaking what they thought was the Law. So from their perspective, He was breaking the sabbath. But He was not breaking God's Law.

The word "accused" is not even there in John 5:18, so obviously that assertion is also wrong.

Not at all. As noted in the movie above, the boys were not guilty of the crime, but they were accused, sought, brought in, charged, and tried for the crime. The Pharisees thought Jesus was breaking the Law, so they were seeking Him because they had accused him already. He also was not guilty, but that didn't stop the Pharisees from thinking He was, accusing Him of it, bringing Him to trial (eventually), and executing Him for it.

Dwight - That's wrong. He DID violate the Sabbath.

If He did, then you are forever lost, because He cannot be the Messiah if He violated the Law in ANY way.

 

[dwight92070]

When the disciples picked the heads of grain to eat, that was a violation of the Law, and yet Jesus called them innocent. They were not just violatiing a "hedge" that they put around the Law. They were actually violating the Law. How do we know that? If they were not violating the Law, then why did Jesus compare them with someone who actually DID break the Law? He compared them with David and his companions and the temple priests.
"Have you not read what David did when he became hungry ... how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, WHICH WAS NOT LAWFUL FOR HIM TO EAT NOR FOR THOSE WITH HIM, BUT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath THE PRIESTS IN THE TEMPLE BREAK THE SABBATH AND ARE INNOCENT? Matthew 12:1-7
So Jesus said that David and his companions BROKE THE LAW AND YET WERE INNOCENT. THEN HE SAID THAT THE PRIESTS BROKE THE LAW ON THE SABBATH, AND YET THEY TOO WERE INNOCENT. So He was affirming that the twelve apostles had indeed broken the Law, and yet were innocent. Verse 7
He said that He was greater than the temple, which is the very cornerstone of the Law - so, in fact, He was saying that He was greater than the Law, as I have pointed out before. This agrees with John the Baptist: "He who comes from above is above all." He also said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. He also said that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, which also means that he was above the Sabbath, which I also stated before.
So likewise, the apostles were breaking the Law by picking the heads of grain and eating them, yet Jesus declared them INNOCENT.
So here we have Jesus actually AFFIRMING THE ACTIONS OF THREE GROUPS THAT BROKE THE LAW and yet He declared them INNOCENT:
The twelve apostles when they picked the heads of grain on the Sabbath, David and his companions who ate the showbread, which was unlawful, and the priests, who violated the Law of the Sabbath, by actually working on that day.
So, by your reasoning, if Jesus affirmed these lawbreakers, then He too would be considered a lawbreaker, and therefore, guilty of sin. But we go by scripture, not your reasoning, and Jesus declared these Lawbreakers innocent and He too was without sin.
So if these three groups can violate the Law, and still be called innocent by Jesus, then I think Jesus Himself could also violate the Law without sinning.

 

[Obadiah]

​

Legalism: False Christianity​

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1

Legalism. We tend to think that everybody else has it, but that we don't. It's like the common cold. We don't understand what it is or how to cure it, but almost everyone suffers from it, and we find it to be very highly contagious. Legalism is like that. It comes upon you and you hardly know what has happened, but there it is. The symptoms are suddenly present and you don't know what to do with it — certainly not how to cure it — and so you suffer through it, but don't know what is wrong.

But legalism is one of the favorite weapons of the enemy. He loves to get Christians to be legalistic, for then he has destroyed their enjoyment of the Spirit and he can use them to spread havoc among other believers. That is what happened in Galatia. Here was a group of young Christians who had a fantastic beginning. They had given themselves totally to Christ. But, after a while, legalism set in. What had been a bright and marvelous testimony of the grace of God was being turned into a dull, apathetic group of religionists — cold, barren, and empty.

This is what legalism will do. It destroys! It did then, and it does the same thing today. I know of no affliction in Christendom which is more widespread, and more devastating in its destructiveness, than this. Across the world today many churches are sunken into a pall of boredom and futility, largely because of the legalistic spirit which has throttled their spiritual vitality.

Legalism can be described as false Christianity. It sounds Christian, and looks Christian, but it is not true Christianity. It as a spurious fake, an empty, hollow counterfeit of the real thing. True Christianity, on the other hand, is to manifest genuinely Christ-like behavior by dependence on the working of the Spirit of God within, motivated by a love for the glory and honor of God. This is the genuine article. There is an expected pattern of Christ-like behavior. There is also the necessary element of a sufficient and adequate power. The good news is that God has given us a sufficient and adequate power, indwelling us, available to us at all times, so that we never have an excuse for not being what we ought to be. With the Spirit of Jesus Christ indwelling us, we have what it takes — a sufficient and adequate power. There is also a powerful, compelling hunger for the glory of God. In short, the true Christian life is fulfilling a law by means of a unique power because of an overwhelming desire.

Lord, help me to identify those legalistic tendencies in my life, and live in the freedom of the Spirit that you have made available to me.

​

by Ray Stedman Ministries.

 

[dwight92070]

1 John 2:6 - "the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked."
1 Corinthians 11:1 - "Be imitator of me, just as I also am of Christ."

If Christ kept the Law, then I guess we have to keep the Law also.
But Paul said that we are not under the Law. Nor was Christ.

 

[dwight92070]

The supposed necessity of water baptism in order to be saved is strangely akin to water baptism of infants, in order that they may be saved. In fact, I wonder if the former believe had its origin in the latter belief. Catholics, Lutherans, and probably many others believe that if you can just get your baby baptized, they are "good to go" for their eternal salvation. I wonder if many adults (and even whole churches) adopted that belief so that, with one "good" work, they would be guaranteed to enter heaven. That sounds like something that man would do, even though misguided.
I remember one Lutheran pastor who was almost in a panic, because a couple had not baptized their newborn yet.

 

[Doug Brents]

The supposed necessity of water baptism in order to be saved is strangely akin to water baptism of infants, in order that they may be saved. In fact, I wonder if the former believe had its origin in the latter belief. Catholics, Lutherans, and probably many others believe that if you can just get your baby baptized, they are "good to go" for their eternal salvation. I wonder if many adults (and even whole churches) adopted that belief so that, with one "good" work, they would be guaranteed to enter heaven. That sounds like something that man would do, even though misguided.
I remember one Lutheran pastor who was almost in a panic, because a couple had not baptized their newborn yet.

Infant baptism is meaningless, because belief that Jesus is the Christ is required before baptism has any meaning. Infants do not believe in Jesus, so their baptism only gets them wet.

 

[dwight92070]

Doug - " belief that Jesus is the Christ is required before baptism has any meaning"

I agree. In fact this is what I have been saying all along. Belief in Jesus, which is salvation (John 6:29) precedes water baptism. Now let's take it a step further. Salvation in Jesus is like a coin - it has two sides - repentance from dead works and faith toward God (Hebrews 6:1). Faith toward God also has two sides: believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. (Romans 10:9-10)

Confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, although done physically with the mouth, is not ONLY physical. Because the mouth is "connected" to the heart, and the words that are spoken come from the heart. Therefore confession with the mouth is not a work as the Bible speaks of good works. It is part of believing and salvation, as Steve Gregg pointed out. There's really only one overall event happening here - salvation, which is synonymous with being made righteous. This confession is simply confirming what is in your heart. Jesus said "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." Matthew 12:34

If I am getting ready to baptize someone in water, how in the world can I know what he believes in his heart, unless he confesses with his mouth what he believes? So if he does not make any confession, then I cannot baptize him. In fact if he never makes any confession of Jesus as His Lord, then baptizing him (besides being disobedient on my part) would be like baptizing a baby - he would simply get wet. I would be baptizing a nonbeliever, one who is not a disciple. If he did believe and confess Jesus as his Lord, then baptizing him would bring to him the happiness and reward of obeying Jesus.

 

[Doug Brents]

I agree. In fact this is what I have been saying all along. Belief in Jesus, which is salvation (John 6:29) precedes water baptism. Now let's take it a step further. Salvation in Jesus is like a coin - it has two sides - repentance from dead works and faith toward God (Hebrews 6:1). Faith toward God also has two sides: believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. (Romans 10:9-10)

Confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, although done physically with the mouth, is not ONLY physical. Because the mouth is "connected" to the heart, and the words that are spoken come from the heart. Therefore confession with the mouth is not a work as the Bible speaks of good works. It is part of believing and salvation, as Steve Gregg pointed out. There's really only one overall event happening here - salvation, which is synonymous with being made righteous. This confession is simply confirming what is in your heart. Jesus said "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." Matthew 12:34

If I am getting ready to baptize someone in water, how in the world can I know what he believes in his heart, unless he confesses with his mouth what he believes? So if he does not make any confession, then I cannot baptize him. In fact if he never makes any confession of Jesus as His Lord, then baptizing him (besides being disobedient on my part) would be like baptizing a baby - he would simply get wet. I would be baptizing a nonbeliever, one who is not a disciple. If he did believe and confess Jesus as his Lord, then baptizing him would bring to him the happiness and reward of obeying Jesus.

What you say here is true as far as it goes, but your contention (and forgive me if I get this wrong) is that by the mental exercise of agreeing with the Gospel one is saved. And then from that point of salvation, one confesses Jesus to show outwardly the condition of his heart, and then is baptized as an outward demonstration of the inward change in his heart.

The problem is, that is not what Scripture says. Rom 10:10 does not say that confession of Jesus as Lord flows out of a saved heart. It says that it leads to receiving salvation. "for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Thus, the confession must come before salvation is received. Similarly, baptism in water is not done after salvation. When one is saved their sins are forgiven, and they are united with Christ. Col 2:11-14 and Rom 6:1-4 both say that it is during water baptism that we die to sin, have our sins cut from us, are united with Jesus in His death and resurrection, and are joined to the Body of Christ (the Church). This occurs during baptism, not before it.

 

[dwight92070]

My siblings and I grew up going to a Baptist church with our parents. I didn't get saved until 5 years after we moved to another town. As I look back at that church, I can clearly see the traditions of men that get in the way of the truth of the gospel. They had a church membership list which was readily available in the lobby, which anyone could look at, at any time. For several years, I did not even look at it - I had no interest in it. However, during our last year there, (I was about 15) I picked up the list one Sunday, just out of curiosity, and looked for our family names there. There were six in our family, our parents, and four of us kids. I was stunned when I looked up our family. They had my parents listed and each of my three siblings, but MY NAME WAS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND! It was like I didn't even exist! For some reason I was singled out, and left out of the membership list, even though our family had been part of that church for over 5 years!!

I asked nobody about this, not even my parents, but I felt pushed aside, ostracized. It wasn't long before I realized why my name was not there - I had never agreed to be baptized, but the rest of my family did.

I remember watching other members in our youth group getting baptized, but I chose not to. It really was a peer pressure thing. If you wanted to be part of the "in" crowd in our youth group, you would get baptized. Before they were baptized, they were each asked to "give a testimony".
It was obvious to me, even then, that for many of them, it had little or nothing to do with Jesus. When they would give their "testimony", they would basically fake it. They would say a few words about God, and then often (especially the girls) start crying. If they began to cry, they didn't even have to finish their "testimony". The pastor would take their tears as being the sign of their sincerity, and then immediately baptize them. Yes, I believe there were a very small number who were sincere, and you could tell by the genuineness of their testimony that they really wanted to follow Jesus.

When I thought about getting baptized, knowing I would have to go through that, I was scared. First off, I didn't even know if I was born again or not (I wasn't), so I couldn't really give a sincere testimony - I knew that I too, would have to fake it in front of the whole church. Just the thought of doing that terrified me. I wanted to fit in with the rest of the youth group, but not if it meant being humiliated in front of the whole church. So I refused to get baptized. As it turned out, by my three siblings own acknowledgement, they were not saved before they got baptized.(Nor were they saved during baptism, as some here have suggested) They did it to be part of the group. On the other hand, I refused to get baptized, even though I thought that's what a Christian is supposed to do, so I felt guilty for not doing it.

As I look back, I was right NOT to get baptized, because I had NO relationship with Jesus at all at that time. Had I known that back then, I would NOT have felt guilty for not being baptized. When I finally was born again, wild horses could not stop me from being baptized - that is, as soon as I realized that that is what I should do, if I wanted to obey Him - it was about 2 - 2 1/2 weeks after I was saved.

A church membership list is not Biblical. The only "membership" we need is to be part of the body of Christ. Then they added insult to injury by NOT putting anyone's name on the list, unless they were baptized. I would never be part of a church that does either of those things. Once you start adding traditions of men to Christianity, you cause MANY stumbling blocks. In fact, I think that youth groups and Sunday schools are also unBiblical. Just because public schools separate kids by their ages, does NOT mean that the church must do that also. In the true body of Christ, there is neither male nor female, Jew or Gentile, YOUNG or OLD, but we are all ONE in Christ Jesus. The church needs to bring families TOGETHER, not separate them by ages!

 

[Doug Brents]

My siblings and I grew up going to a Baptist church with our parents. I didn't get saved until 5 years after we moved to another town. As I look back at that church, I can clearly see the traditions of men that get in the way of the truth of the gospel. They had a church membership list which was readily available in the lobby, which anyone could look at, at any time. For several years, I did not even look at it - I had no interest in it. However, during our last year there, (I was about 15) I picked up the list one Sunday, just out of curiosity, and looked for our family names there. There were six in our family, our parents, and four of us kids. I was stunned when I looked up our family. They had my parents listed and each of my three siblings, but MY NAME WAS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND! It was like I didn't even exist! For some reason I was singled out, and left out of the membership list, even though our family had been part of that church for over 5 years!!

I asked nobody about this, not even my parents, but I felt pushed aside, ostracized. It wasn't long before I realized why my name was not there - I had never agreed to be baptized, but the rest of my family did.

I remember watching other members in our youth group getting baptized, but I chose not to. It really was a peer pressure thing. If you wanted to be part of the "in" crowd in our youth group, you would get baptized. Before they were baptized, they were each asked to "give a testimony".
It was obvious to me, even then, that for many of them, it had little or nothing to do with Jesus. When they would give their "testimony", they would basically fake it. They would say a few words about God, and then often (especially the girls) start crying. If they began to cry, they didn't even have to finish their "testimony". The pastor would take their tears as being the sign of their sincerity, and then immediately baptize them. Yes, I believe there were a very small number who were sincere, and you could tell by the genuineness of their testimony that they really wanted to follow Jesus.

You are right, most of the people who do what you are describing are not saved. They are just going through motions to "be in the 'in crowd'". I have witnessed many "baptisms" similar to what you describe. But this is not Biblical baptism.

When I thought about getting baptized, knowing I would have to go through that, I was scared. First off, I didn't even know if I was born again or not (I wasn't), so I couldn't really give a sincere testimony - I knew that I too, would have to fake it in front of the whole church. Just the thought of doing that terrified me. I wanted to fit in with the rest of the youth group, but not if it meant being humiliated in front of the whole church. So I refused to get baptized. As it turned out, by my three siblings own acknowledgement, they were not saved before they got baptized.(Nor were they saved during baptism, as some here have suggested) They did it to be part of the group. On the other hand, I refused to get baptized, even though I thought that's what a Christian is supposed to do, so I felt guilty for not doing it.

As I look back, I was right NOT to get baptized, because I had NO relationship with Jesus at all at that time. Had I known that back then, I would NOT have felt guilty for not being baptized. When I finally was born again, wild horses could not stop me from being baptized - that is, as soon as I realized that that is what I should do, if I wanted to obey Him - it was about 2 - 2 1/2 weeks after I was saved.

I'm sorry, but you cannot be saved without being forgiven, and your sins are not removed until they are cut from you by the Holy Spirit during baptism. You can think you are saved, you can have "warm fuzzies", you can say a prayer and ask Jesus into your heart, but until you obey Him in baptism He does not remove your sins.

A church membership list is not Biblical.

This is true. It may be ok to do, but if it is used as a tool of coercion (like you describe above), then it is an evil thing.

The only "membership" we need is to be part of the body of Christ. Then they added insult to injury by NOT putting anyone's name on the list, unless they were baptized. I would never be part of a church that does either of those things. Once you start adding traditions of men to Christianity, you cause MANY stumbling blocks.

The membership list you mention is a tradition of men. But the fact that one is baptized into the Church (not the local congregation but the Body of Christ) is a Biblical fact (Gal 3:26-27). Anyone who is not baptized into Christ is not in the Church.

In fact, I think that youth groups and Sunday schools are also unBiblical. Just because public schools separate kids by their ages, does NOT mean that the church must do that also. In the true body of Christ, there is neither male nor female, Jew or Gentile, YOUNG or OLD, but we are all ONE in Christ Jesus. The church needs to bring families TOGETHER, not separate them by ages!

This is a separate topic, but I agree that the Church should bring families together, but there are differences between the young and old physically and spiritually. There are some who need the milk of the Word, and there are some who can handle the meat of the Word. Someone who can handle the meat should be able to be in a class where stronger lessons and deeper truths are taught and discussed. But someone who can only handle the milk (like the young and the newly reborn) should be brought into the meat through a process of growth. So I believe that divisions of classrooms by spiritual age (not necessarily physical age although most of the physically young are also spiritually young) are appropriate.

 

[dwight92070]

The Bible doesn't use the phrase "mental exercise of agreeing with the gospel", nor do I. So why do you persist in saying that that is what I am talking about? It is NOT. The word "believe" and the word "faith" are scripturally the same. When Jesus said, "Believe in God, believe also in Me.", He was saying: Put your faith in God, put your faith also in Me. Your inaccurate phrase demeans both what I said and also the scripture. Nowhere in the Bible is that phrase used.

You are mistaken about Romans 10:9-10. As I explained before, only one event is happening here, not two. Righteousness given to us occurs at the same time as salvation is given to us. We don't get salvation at one point and righteousness at another point. Both verses have the same message:
Verse 9 summarized says: If you confess (with your mouth) AND believe (in your heart), you will be saved. Verse 10 summarized says: If you believe (in your heart) AND confess (with your mouth), you will come to righteousness and you will come to salvation.

Each verse says that BOTH confession AND belief MUST be present for salvation (verse 10 adds righteousness, which is synonymous with salvation), which is the goal of both verses. NEITHER verse is saying which one has to come first. So you are wrong to say that these verses teach that confession must come before salvation. They do NOT. These verses DO NOT SPECIFY a certain order, with one coming before the other.

However, it's impossible to make a sincere confession with your mouth, unless you first believe in your heart, that which you are confessing.
Also Romans 10:9-10 say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT BAPTISM, so when you READ INTO THEM that baptism is the point of salvation, you are engaging in eisegesis. These verses don't even discuss baptism, so why do you? ONLY because of your indoctrination that baptism is the time of salvation, dying to sin, having our sins "cut from us", and being joined to the body of Christ. NONE of your go-to verses say that. Not these verses, not Colossians 2:11-14 and not Romans 6:1-4. You have to READ INTO all of those verses to get them to say what you want them to say. To suggest that all of those things that happen at salvation, actually happen during baptism is totally unsubstantiated by your go-to verses. I guess you believe that if you keep saying it over and over, that that will make it true, but NO, it won't.

I had the assurance of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:6 and the Holy Spirit that I was saved and had my sins forgiven - I was born again, Jesus was my Lord, I had a hunger for reading the Word and a desire to find a church home - and yet I was not baptized for close to 2 1/2 weeks. So you can accuse me of not having my sins forgiven during that time and not being saved, all you want. My trust is and was in Jesus' words (not yours), and the apostle's teaching that faith must precede salvation and baptism, and that baptism is a figure, as Peter said, not the actual thing that it represents.
I trust that 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:26-27 are NOT referring to water baptism, but being brought into the body of Christ by faith. I trust that Jesus was NOT referring to water baptism when He told Nicodemus that "... unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5

If you have some other scriptures or other reasonable arguments about scripture that actually verify your assertions, then I welcome them. But if you're just going to give me your same arguments over and over, which I reject, then you might as well save your time (and mine) and stop. I have welcomed our back and forth, but we are going in circles, and accomplishing nothing. You have your view and I have mine. I'm open to discussing other topics with you, but we have exhausted this one - and I am exhausted. God bless you.

 

[Doug Brents]

The Bible doesn't use the phrase "mental exercise of agreeing with the gospel", nor do I. So why do you persist in saying that that is what I am talking about? It is NOT. The word "believe" and the word "faith" are scripturally the same. When Jesus said, "Believe in God, believe also in Me.", He was saying: Put your faith in God, put your faith also in Me. Your inaccurate phrase demeans both what I said and also the scripture. Nowhere in the Bible is that phrase used.

I am glad that you do not equate belief with simple intellectual assent. You are correct that Scripture does not say that, but many I have conversed with do equate the modern English concept of belief (simple intellectual assent) with the Biblical statements of "believe and be saved". Forgive me for projecting their error onto you.

You are mistaken about Romans 10:9-10. As I explained before, only one event is happening here, not two. Righteousness given to us occurs at the same time as salvation is given to us. We don't get salvation at one point and righteousness at another point. Both verses have the same message:
Verse 9 summarized says: If you confess (with your mouth) AND believe (in your heart), you will be saved. Verse 10 summarized says: If you believe (in your heart) AND confess (with your mouth), you will come to righteousness and you will come to salvation.

I am not saying that there are two events, and never have. Here, I believe you are projecting other's misconception onto me (for which you are forgiven). Yes, righteousness and salvation go hand in hand. If you are saved, then you are made righteous, and if you have been made righteous you are saved. You cannot be one without the other.

But also, you cannot stop with just this passage. It is not in belief or in confession that our sins are removed; that only happens during baptism.

Each verse says that BOTH confession AND belief MUST be present for salvation (verse 10 adds righteousness, which is synonymous with salvation), which is the goal of both verses. NEITHER verse is saying which one has to come first. So you are wrong to say that these verses teach that confession must come before salvation. They do NOT. These verses DO NOT SPECIFY a certain order, with one coming before the other.

Yes, there is a statement of order here. Belief must come first, because you cannot confess what you do not believe. Confession must come next, because without the physical action being taken the belief is not real nor the faith alive. And salvation comes after, because confession leads to (results in) salvation.

However, it's impossible to make a sincere confession with your mouth, unless you first believe in your heart, that which you are confessing.
Also Romans 10:9-10 say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT BAPTISM, so when you READ INTO THEM that baptism is the point of salvation, you are engaging in eisegesis. These verses don't even discuss baptism, so why do you?

Because I believe that all of Scripture is equally valid. I believe that every Scripture that speaks on a topic must be considered when we are trying to determine what doctrine to adopt on a subject. In terms of soteriology, every passage that speaks about salvation must be considered. So Rom 10:9-10 does not stand alone. To it we must consider also John 3:16, and 1 Pet 3:21, and Acts 2:38, and Mark 16:16, and Matt 28:19, and Acts 22:16, and Col 2:11-14, and Rom 6:1-4, and so many others. All of these give additional information on what is required to become saved, to receive the gift from God of the forgiveness that we do not deserve and cannot earn. If we fail to include any of these and the many more passages that deal with salvation, then we risk leaving out some important aspect of what it is to receive salvation.

ONLY because of your indoctrination that baptism is the time of salvation, dying to sin, having our sins "cut from us", and being joined to the body of Christ. NONE of your go-to verses say that. Not these verses, not Colossians 2:11-14 and not Romans 6:1-4. You have to READ INTO all of those verses to get them to say what you want them to say. To suggest that all of those things that happen at salvation, actually happen during baptism is totally unsubstantiated by your go-to verses. I guess you believe that if you keep saying it over and over, that that will make it true, but NO, it won't.

I have not read anything into any of these passages. Col 2 and Rom 6 both say explicitly that the actions of the Holy Spirit that remove our sins occur during baptism. It does not take any "reading into" them to see that.

I had the assurance of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:6 and the Holy Spirit that I was saved and had my sins forgiven - I was born again, Jesus was my Lord, I had a hunger for reading the Word and a desire to find a church home - and yet I was not baptized for close to 2 1/2 weeks. So you can accuse me of not having my sins forgiven during that time and not being saved, all you want. My trust is and was in Jesus' words (not yours), and the apostle's teaching that faith must precede salvation and baptism, and that baptism is a figure, as Peter said, not the actual thing that it represents.
I trust that 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:26-27 are NOT referring to water baptism, but being brought into the body of Christ by faith. I trust that Jesus was NOT referring to water baptism when He told Nicodemus that "... unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5

You can believe, and trust, that those passages are not talking about water baptism all you want, but that would mean you are arguing with Scripture. There is only one baptism of any relevance in the NT Church, and that baptism, through direct statement of Scripture and through the examples of the first century Church, requires water. And it is in that baptism that we receive salvation.

If you have some other scriptures or other reasonable arguments about scripture that actually verify your assertions, then I welcome them. But if you're just going to give me your same arguments over and over, which I reject, then you might as well save your time (and mine) and stop. I have welcomed our back and forth, but we are going in circles, and accomplishing nothing. You have your view and I have mine. I'm open to discussing other topics with you, but we have exhausted this one - and I am exhausted. God bless you.

I also have enjoyed our discussion, and pray that you will continue to study it with an open heart. Remember that all Scripture is one body of work authored by one person even though it was penned by many hands. The Holy Spirit put many instructions in many places so that we have to study the whole of the Scriptures to understand it. We cannot take just one verse and build our doctrine around it. I appreciate that you do not believe what I believe at this point, but I do hope that you will come to accept the truth through additional time and study.

May the Lord bless you, your family, and your studies, and give you understanding and unity in Him.