Doug Brents
Active Member
"Yeah but...". You have far too many, "Yeah but..."s.
Man has free will. God did not promise the lives of all the men would be spared. He promised that they were Paul's. Paul could have not warned the centurion.
"Works Salvation"
- Thread starter Seabass
- Start date
Man has free will. God did not promise the lives of all the men would be spared. He promised that they were Paul's. Paul could have not warned the centurion.
@Doug Brents
Prove it~prove that sinners have a free will to do spiritual acts "pleasing to God". Provide what proof you think you have from the word of God. I just got in, but will go back and read over others input in the morning if time permits.
And you accuse me of denying scripture.
Mar 1:4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for [eis - unto] the forgiveness of sins.
Luk 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for [eis - unto] the forgiveness of sins.
The blood of Christ, his sacrifice made available the same as the blood of animals sacrificed in the OT as far as forgiveness was concerned. Even the animal sacrifices in the OT provided for the forgiveness of sin for the believer. What the animal sacrifices could not accomplish was the payment of the debt owed for the sins. Forgiveness of sins and payment of the debt owed for the sins are two different things. The Holiness of God demands that sin be punished whether they be forgiven or not.
I will wait for @Doug Brents to respond before I give my response.
That is a joke of all joke coming from one who presents God as condemning most human beings for the pure joy of doing so.
@Jim @Doug Brents @Seabass
Consider two important points: First, Jesus would have never mention water if Nicodemus had never mentioned entering into his mother's womb the second time, never! This is to clearly seen if we just following the flow of the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus.
Secondly, water is never mentioned again when Jesus described the new birth:
Water is not mention again after John 3:5, why? Because water is explain here:
To be born of water is to be born as we all were from our mother's womb! The water breaks and we come forth born of FLESH, sinful and wicked, and that will never change, no never.
But that which is born of the Spirit of God is spirit, or spiritual, created a new man after the image of Jesus Christ and this is done by the Spirit of the Living God in a twinkling of an eye! Just an the resurrection shall take place one day very soon. When God creates, he just wills it to be and it is DONE! Example:
But, in the twinkling of an eye, one thief got born of the Spirit of God just before he left this world!
You folks are blinded to the blessed truth of how one is born of the Spirit of God, it takes place in a twinkling of an eye, you do not need to be baptized BEFORE you are born again! The new birth must proceed all spiritual works done before one is even qualified to be baptized in water.
The faith in Christ is the evidence of the new birth, not the cause thereof!
All of God's children said Amen and Amen.
Think so? You folks who believe that water baptism is part of being born again, have another gospel, pure and simple. John 3:5 has not one word concerning water baptism, that subject is never brought up by the Lord Jesus in his discourse with Nicodemus, never. Your strong desire to include works on man's part, forces you to corrupt scriptures whenever you see "water" in a verse.
John 3:5
“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”Consider two important points: First, Jesus would have never mention water if Nicodemus had never mentioned entering into his mother's womb the second time, never! This is to clearly seen if we just following the flow of the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus.
Secondly, water is never mentioned again when Jesus described the new birth:
John 3:8
“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”Water is not mention again after John 3:5, why? Because water is explain here:
John 3:6
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”To be born of water is to be born as we all were from our mother's womb! The water breaks and we come forth born of FLESH, sinful and wicked, and that will never change, no never.
But that which is born of the Spirit of God is spirit, or spiritual, created a new man after the image of Jesus Christ and this is done by the Spirit of the Living God in a twinkling of an eye! Just an the resurrection shall take place one day very soon. When God creates, he just wills it to be and it is DONE! Example:
Matthew 27:44
“The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.”But, in the twinkling of an eye, one thief got born of the Spirit of God just before he left this world!
Luke 23:39-43
“And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."You folks are blinded to the blessed truth of how one is born of the Spirit of God, it takes place in a twinkling of an eye, you do not need to be baptized BEFORE you are born again! The new birth must proceed all spiritual works done before one is even qualified to be baptized in water.
Acts 8:37
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”1st John 5:1
“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”The faith in Christ is the evidence of the new birth, not the cause thereof!
Galatians 1:8
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”All of God's children said Amen and Amen.
Seabass
Active Member
Water in Jn 3:5 refers to literal water. Proper exegesis requires words to be taken at their literal primary meaning unless something in the context proves otherwise. NOTHING in the context of Jn 3 has water meaning anything other than literal water.
Spirit means literal Spirit; water means literal water:
The Spirit is the Agent, the One who instructs men on how to be saved and water is the element the SPirit instructs men to be baptized with:
Acts 8 The Spirit did not personally teach or baptize the eunuch but the Spirit sent for Philip to teach and water baptize the eunuch. So we have the Spirit, the Agent, instructing men through teaching and water being the element the eunuch was baptized with.
Reason being that the Spirit did not teach the eunuch Himself or "Spirit" baptize the eunuch Himself is because it is God's plan that men be taught the word (1 Cor 1:21) and men be baptized in water (Acts 8:38; Acts 10:47-48). Hence the Spirit sent for Philip to preach to the eunuch and water baptized him. This is why all the conversions in Acts had men teaching and people being water baptized for this is HOW disciples are to be made per Mt 28:19-20:
Matthews account of the great commission sends disciples to go forth and make new disciples by teaching and baptizing. This is what exactly happened with the eunuch.....he was taught and water baptized.
As discussed on earlier posts, 'teach' and 'baptize' are modal participles, that is, teaching and baptizing is the means, the method in HOW disciples are made. Teaching alone does not make one a disciple. It takes BOTH teaching AND baptizing to make one a disciple.
This is why there is no such thing as an untaught, unbaptized disciple/Christian found under the NT gospel.
The Spirit the Agent instructing men through teaching and water being the element the eunuch was baptized with.
-----------------------Agent++++++++++Element >>>>>>>>>> results in salvation
Jn 3:5----------------Spirit ++++++++++water >>>>>>>>>>> in the kingdom
Tts 3:5----------Holy SPirit++++++washing of reg>>>>>>>> saved
1Cor 12:13------Spirit +++++++++baptized >>>>>>>>>>>> in the body
Eph 5:26--------the Word ++++++washing of water >>>>>> cleansed
There is just one way to be born again and the Bible does not contradict itself so each of the above verses much teach the exact same thing.
Mt 7:21----------he that doeth the will of the Father >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enters the kingdom
Jn 3:5 -------------born of water & Spirit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enters the kingdom
Since there is but one way to be saved (enter the kingdom), no alternatives, then there is a definite connection between DOING the will of the Father and being born of water and Spirit. God's Spirit, the Agent, in His word has instructed man, has commanded men, to be water baptized to be saved. Hence those that submit to the Agent by being water baptized are those who are doing the will of the Father in obeying His command to be water baptized. Not being baptized fails in doing the will of the Father and leaves one outside the kingdom,
=================================================
The thief lived and died under the OT law (Heb 9:15-17). He was promised paradise while he and Christ were still both alive and under the OT law so he is not an example of NT salvation (he was not accountable to Acts 2:38) so he is not relevant to this discussion.
Last edited:
@Seabass
The very purpose of John 3:1-8, is what? You have no clue, nor does your friends, who like you are peddling a work gospel system where you have man having a part in his salvation from sin and condemnation. You are guilty of stealing glory from what Christ did alone in order to secure eternal life for those given to him of Father to redeem ~per John 17:2-10.
So, what is the purpose of John 3:1-8? To reveal to us that regeneration does and "must proceed" seeing, believing, and obeying the gospel. What better person to use to prove this truth of the holy scriptures than a pharisaical leader among the Jewish nation, named Nicodemus at that time. This man, unlike most of the Pharisees who accuse Christ of being demon possessed, came to Christ with a childlike spirit and made a confession to him that is as good as any profession any of us could possible make even now. Because of this confession in John 3:2, promoted Christ to said:
The double verily is always used by Christ to emphasis a truth that few would ever consider believing, without this double verily. Christ said: EXCEPT a man be born again he cannot see...etc. Nicodemus' confession in verse two proved that he did see that Christ was more than just an ordinary man, but indeed God was with him, a confession that proved one is born of God~for no man can see, except he is born of God, the truth taht is proven to us by John 3:1-8. More later...
But, water is determine by the context and literal water baptism does not fix the context, impossible. Again, if Nicodemus had not ask the question that he did in verse four, than water would have never been mentioned in verse five, proven by the fact that it is not mentioned again when the Lord describes the new birth in John 3:8. This is so clear, argue if you want to, but it will all be in vain, since the context is against you. And you probably know that it is, you just do not care, because many of you are too deep in turning back and pride will not allow you to do so.
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Look at verse 37: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
Regeneration first, then seeking to do that which God commanded them to do! When we read Acts 2:37,38 in the context in which we find these words and compare with other scriptures then we know that they were first born of God, and then sought to do what is commanded of them.
Peter, who was trained under the greatest prophet ever, knew the signs of regeneration and when he saw them being pricked in their spirits, he knew that that was a sign of being born of God, so he told them: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
"For", meaning because of, not in order to obtain! See Mark 1:44. Compare these men in Acts 2:37 with Acts 7:54 and see the difference between the two groups, one born of the Spirit, (Acts 2:37) the others still in their sins! (Acts 7:54)
Time would fail me to keep going on this one point but Acts 10 is another place where regeneration first, then fruits of the Spirit following, etc., and then water baptism following that.
I'm coming back and finish your post since this is all ready too long for the average reader.
Proper exegesis in John 3:1-8, reveals to us that the "flow of context will" guide us into the truth of this discourse, and literal water doesn't fit the context of this discourse, impossible.
The very purpose of John 3:1-8, is what? You have no clue, nor does your friends, who like you are peddling a work gospel system where you have man having a part in his salvation from sin and condemnation. You are guilty of stealing glory from what Christ did alone in order to secure eternal life for those given to him of Father to redeem ~per John 17:2-10.
So, what is the purpose of John 3:1-8? To reveal to us that regeneration does and "must proceed" seeing, believing, and obeying the gospel. What better person to use to prove this truth of the holy scriptures than a pharisaical leader among the Jewish nation, named Nicodemus at that time. This man, unlike most of the Pharisees who accuse Christ of being demon possessed, came to Christ with a childlike spirit and made a confession to him that is as good as any profession any of us could possible make even now. Because of this confession in John 3:2, promoted Christ to said:
John 3:3
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”The double verily is always used by Christ to emphasis a truth that few would ever consider believing, without this double verily. Christ said: EXCEPT a man be born again he cannot see...etc. Nicodemus' confession in verse two proved that he did see that Christ was more than just an ordinary man, but indeed God was with him, a confession that proved one is born of God~for no man can see, except he is born of God, the truth taht is proven to us by John 3:1-8. More later...
Spirit does indeed mean the Holy Spirit proven by context and the rest of the word of God. John 1:13, etc.
But, water is determine by the context and literal water baptism does not fix the context, impossible. Again, if Nicodemus had not ask the question that he did in verse four, than water would have never been mentioned in verse five, proven by the fact that it is not mentioned again when the Lord describes the new birth in John 3:8. This is so clear, argue if you want to, but it will all be in vain, since the context is against you. And you probably know that it is, you just do not care, because many of you are too deep in turning back and pride will not allow you to do so.
Well, you got half of it right~the Spirit did not baptized the eunuch, that's not too deep to follow; and water was indeed used; but He did open his heart and gave him a strong desire to know the truth, just as the Spirit opened Lydia's heart (Acts 16:14) which again is an evidence of regeneration, not the means thereof.
You have a Spirit less rellgion that exalts man at every turn if all possible, your religion is just the opposite of the Pentecostals, who go to the other extreme. Not all conversions in Acts are as you are trying to portray to fit your Spirit-less religion. They actually fit the same method in which John 3:1-8 is teaching us.
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Look at verse 37: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
Regeneration first, then seeking to do that which God commanded them to do! When we read Acts 2:37,38 in the context in which we find these words and compare with other scriptures then we know that they were first born of God, and then sought to do what is commanded of them.
Peter, who was trained under the greatest prophet ever, knew the signs of regeneration and when he saw them being pricked in their spirits, he knew that that was a sign of being born of God, so he told them: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
"For", meaning because of, not in order to obtain! See Mark 1:44. Compare these men in Acts 2:37 with Acts 7:54 and see the difference between the two groups, one born of the Spirit, (Acts 2:37) the others still in their sins! (Acts 7:54)
Time would fail me to keep going on this one point but Acts 10 is another place where regeneration first, then fruits of the Spirit following, etc., and then water baptism following that.
I'm coming back and finish your post since this is all ready too long for the average reader.
brightfame52
Active Member
brightfame52
Active Member
@Seabass
As a man he used the scriptures to convert men like Nicodemus after the SPirit quickened them to life~even though he never baptized the first soul! Wonder why? I know, but you do not know.
The gospel converts those born of God and then we are to baptized them into Jesus Christ, or into his faith/religion~Romans 6:3-5. You men have it all wrong, better for me to tell you than to hear Christ tell you at that day.
Acts 10 is the second prime example of such people. Consider Cornelius. For sake of time:
https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2004/when-was-cornelius-saved/
letgodbetrue.com
See: https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2004/first-corinthians-12/ (verse 13.)
You folks believe it is by works of obedience that makes one a child of God, that is pure heresy. You are children of the bondwoman, we are the children of the free woman~her name is GRACE.
That's correct~yet making disciples and being born of God are totally two different doctrine altogether. God regenerates sometime after conception and before death of one's body ~John the Baptist and the thief on the cross are the two prime examples given to us from heaven. Our duty is to convert those who show faith in the scriptures and a desire to know them~which desire neither you or myself have the power to instill in folks. A clear distinction that those who have another gospel (of works) know nothing about. Our duty before God is to make and baptize true believers, after God regenerates them.
John 4:1
“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,”As a man he used the scriptures to convert men like Nicodemus after the SPirit quickened them to life~even though he never baptized the first soul! Wonder why? I know, but you do not know.
1st Corinthians 1:17
“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”The gospel converts those born of God and then we are to baptized them into Jesus Christ, or into his faith/religion~Romans 6:3-5. You men have it all wrong, better for me to tell you than to hear Christ tell you at that day.
Yes, I read it and like I just said above~that all is correct, yet were you missed the truth is that God "FIRST" must regenerate a man dead in tresspasses and sins, or the gospel will be foolishness unto any man still in his sins~we are told by Christ not to cast our pearls before such men ~ you know the scripture. We like Paul go where men show a desire to know God, yet lack true knowledge of him and His desire for them.
There is such a thing as untaught God fearing people in thsi world using the word of to described such people. A disciple and Christian is what we are commanded to make of them!
Acts 10 is the second prime example of such people. Consider Cornelius. For sake of time:
https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2004/when-was-cornelius-saved/
Regeneration & Conversion Compared
Regeneration & Conversion Compared The Gospel Is Not Involved In Regeneration The Condition of Man precludes it. The gospel cannot help those who are dead (Gen 2:17; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13). The gospel cannot help those who cannot see it (John 3:3; II Cor 4:3-4). The gospel cannot help...
letgodbetrue.com
This is one confused mess, and time will not permit me to untangle this mess, even though it would be no problem to do so, if I only knew that it would be profitable for some soul for me to do so, then I would. Btw, 1st Corinthians 12:13 has nothing to do with water baptism, or the so called baptism of the Spirit.
See: https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2004/first-corinthians-12/ (verse 13.)
It is true, that they that do the will of God by living righteously (when their overall life is considered) are the only one giving evidence that they are assure of eternal life in the world to come, and even this is very subjected since many beleive they are doing so, and most of them have set up their own doctrines as that which must be followed if one is to have eternal life.
Salvation from sin and condemnation is the same in both testaments~it is by the promises of God alone, not by our works.
Galatians 4:28
“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”Romans 9:8
“That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”You folks believe it is by works of obedience that makes one a child of God, that is pure heresy. You are children of the bondwoman, we are the children of the free woman~her name is GRACE.
atpollard
Active Member
Amen and Amen!
I had to remove a couple of posts so lets try can calm it down and try to all get along.
Seabass
Active Member
The NT is very clear that obedience is required in order for one to be saved, Paul wrote "obedience unto righteousness". And obedience is not a work of merit, a simple fact many faith onlyists refuse to acknowledge.
1) you are very inconsistent with your interpretation of Jn 3. You have no problem with Spirit meaning literal Spirit for that fits within your theological bias. Yet you cannot have water meaning literal water for that does not fit your narrative. Therefore you must make water mean something other than literal water.....and that is not based on anything contextual but simply based on your theological bias against the necessity of water baptism and nothing more.
2) Jesus first tells Nicodemus "Except a man be born again" v3. Then Jesus expounds further on what the phrase "born again" means in v5 when He says "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit". Hence the phrase "born again" encompasses the entire phrase "be born of water and of the Spirit"
a) this new process of being born of water and the Spirit" i.e., being "born again" was something Nicodemus had NOT yet experienced. He had already experienced the physical birth. Hence the physical birth is not part of the phrase "born of water and of the Spirit" since he had already experienced the physical birth. Peter makes a distinct contrast between being born again and the corruptible seed (physical birth) (1 Pet 1:23)
b) the word "must" carries the idea of a command...a requirement, a necessity. If born of water refers to the physical birth then you have Jesus commanding, requiring a person to physically exist as if Christ does not already know that a full grown adult standing in front of Him that He is talking to already exists! I do not recall Philip questioning the physical existence of the eunuch before teaching and water baptizing the eunuch...simply because the physical birth is not part of the phrase "being born of water and the Spirit". I am not familiar with anywhere in the Bible the word "water" is used figuratively for the physical birth. I see this as an idea men have made up to get around the force of Christ's words.
3) Jesus condemns Nicodemus by saying "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" Nicodemus should have already known about this new birth because it was prophesied about in the OT. Ezekiel says of this new birth in 36:25-26
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."
The water in this prophecy has nothing at all to do with the physical birth. Ezekiel is saying a time is coming when there will be a new start where water shall you be clean, from your filthiness and idols. The Hebrew writer says "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Heb 10:22. Again water here has nothing at all to do with the physical birth. 1 Pet 1:2 "...through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:...." . With water referencing water baptism....Christ shed His blood in His death, (Jn 19:34). John says Christ "washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:5). Therefore man must have access to the death of Christ for that is where His shed blood is that washes away sin. And by God's design, not by coincidence, water baptism is HOW one gains access to Christ's death "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:3-4). It is water baptism, not the water of the physical birth, that gives us access to Christ's blood that washes away sin.
Ezekiel also writes:
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" Man has a role in his own salvation by casting away his transgressions and making himself a new heart and spirit!!! Peter told those in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized for remission of sins and goes on to say in v40 to "save yourselves". "Save yourselves" is equivalent to "make you a new heart & spirit". Man cannot save himself by himself apart from God but man save himself in the sense of obeying God's command to repent and be baptized. Likewise we make ourselves a new heart and spirit by obeying God's command to be water baptized thereby we are "doing the will of the Father and can then enter the kingdom (Mt 7:21).
4) I will touch on again Matthew's account of the great commission where 'teach' and 'baptized' are modal participles..that teaching and baptize is HOW disciples are made. Not made by the physical birth, by simply existing else all ever physically born would be Christians
5) the Greek word eis in Acts 2:38 does not mean because nor has it ever been proven to mean because. Out of about 1500 times it appears in the Bible it is NEVER translated because. If you can change the meaning of Greek words then anyone can change the meaning of Greek words and the common Greek would become meaningless, useless.
Heb 11:7 Noah built an ark to (eis) the saving of his house. Noah did not build the ark because his house was already saved from a flood that had not yet happened. God gives man commands and man must obey those commands IN ORDER to receive God's gift. Naaman dipped 7 times not because he was already healed but in order to receive God's gift of healing. Nineveh did not repent because they were already saved from destruction (Jonah 3:4 cf Mt 12:41) but in order to be saved from destruction. (Jonah 3:10). Likewise the Jews in Acts 2 were not commanded to repent and be baptized because they were already saved but in order to be saved. Christ did not shed His blood because those Jews sins were already remitted but in order for sins to be remitted.(Mt 26:28)
6) the Spirit opens men's heart by His word being preached to men as Philip preached to Philip and Paul spoke to the word to Lydia (Acts 16:13-14). Again, it was God's plan that men be saved by preaching (1 Cor 1:21) and being water baptized (Acts 8:36) and not by some miraculous event done by the Spirit apart from His word. Hence all the conversions in Acts involved the word being taught/preached and people being water baptized just as God planned it. Hence the Spirit called for Philip to teach and water baptize the eunuch. The Spirit did not miraculous operate on the heart of the eunuch nor did the Spirit baptize the eunuch.
Last edited:
Doug Brents
Active Member
I have never talked about spiritual acts that would be pleasing to God. Public, verbal confession is not a spiritual act. Baptism is not a spiritual act. When God gives conditions for the reception of His gifts, those conditions are well within the capability of the people instructed to do them.
Naaman was not instructed to resurrect someone, or turn lead into gold. He was instructed to dip in Jordan seven times.
Israel was not instructed to de-atomize the walls of Jericho, or to teleport into the city on their own power. They were instructed to walk in silence around the city once for six days, and on the seventh to walk around seven times, and then yell, and blow trumpets.
We today are told to repent (turn from our sin to following God), confess Jesus as Lord publicly and verbally, and to be immersed in water. The gift that God promises when we do this is the reception of salvation (a gift ONLY He can give).
It takes faith to please God (Heb 11:6). Faith must include our actions in response to our mental acceptance of what God says. If there are no actions, then there is no faith, and thus no pleasing God. You cannot have faith without action, any more than you can have a living human body without the soul within it.
Seabass
Active Member
The debate between Dr Ralph Marcus and Baptist Greek "Scholar" Julius Mantey on the Greek word eis: (my emp)
AI:
The debate between Julius R. Mantey and Ralph Marcus centered on whether the Greek preposition eis (εἰς) can have a “causal” meaning (“because of,” “on account of,” or “in view of”) in the New Testament, especially in Acts 2:38.
(ready4eternity.com +1)
Background and Context
The key verse is Acts 2:38 (in Peter’s Pentecost sermon):
“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ eis the forgiveness of your sins…”
Standard translations render eis here as “for” (purpose/result: “in order to obtain” or “unto” forgiveness). Some interpreters, however, have argued for a causal sense (“because of” forgiveness already received), which would make baptism a response to prior forgiveness rather than the means by which forgiveness is granted. This view has often been tied to theological debates about whether baptism is essential to salvation.
livingstoncoc.wordpress.com
Julius R. Mantey (a prominent Baptist Greek scholar and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament) championed the causal interpretation in the early 1950s. He conceded that no major Greek lexicons or grammars (except his own) listed a causal use for eis, but he appealed to usage in Hellenistic Greek (e.g., Polybius, Josephus) and several NT passages (including Matt 3:11, 12:41; Acts 2:38). His goal was to show that eis could sometimes look backward (causal) rather than forward (telic/purpose).
gbntv.org
The Debate in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1951–1952)
The exchange played out in four articles in the Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL):
(scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com)
The consensus among later Greek scholars is that Marcus won the linguistic argument.
What Daniel B. Wallace Said:
Daniel B. Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary), in his widely used Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), explicitly discusses the debate under the preposition eis. He calls it a “blow-by-blow encounter” and notes that Mantey’s motivation appeared to be theological (to protect “faith alone” by removing baptism from the forgiveness equation). Wallace then states:
“Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof.”
Wallace does not include “causal” as one of the recognized uses of eis in his grammar (he lists spatial, temporal, purpose, result, etc.). He therefore treats the traditional “for/purpose” rendering of Acts 2:38 as the grammatically supported one, while still offering other exegetical/theological ways to interpret the verse that do not make baptism essential for salvation.
In short:
Note that Prof. Daniel Wallace a well know Greek scholar of today sided with Dr Marcus, yet Wallace does not believe that baptism is required for salvation:
"Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that “the linguistic evidence for a causal eis” falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of the preposition an “ingenious solution” that “lacks conviction” (1996, 370-371)."
christiancourier.com
======================
A.T. Robertson, a prince among Baptist Greek scholars, gives one of the worst commentaries ever on Acts 2:38 where he writes: (my emp)
"Unto the remission of your sins (εις αφεσιν των αμαρτιων υμων). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of εις does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 εις δοξαν ημων (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of εις for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples εις ονομα προφητου, δικαιου, μαθητου where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (εις το κηρυγμα Ιωνα). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received."
As I put in bold above, Mr Robertson is essentially saying one's theological bias should dictate what the Bible says instead of letting the Bible speak for itself. In other words, it you don't like what a verse says...change the verse.
==================
"Even the renowned Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who attempted to twist Acts 2:38 into conformity with his personal theological agenda, was forced to surrender his position when discussing Matthew 26:28. Of the controversial phrase he stated:
christiancourier.com
==========================
"In addition, J. R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion — see: H. E. Dana & J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04)."
christiancourier.com
AI:
The debate between Julius R. Mantey and Ralph Marcus centered on whether the Greek preposition eis (εἰς) can have a “causal” meaning (“because of,” “on account of,” or “in view of”) in the New Testament, especially in Acts 2:38.
(ready4eternity.com +1)
Background and Context
The key verse is Acts 2:38 (in Peter’s Pentecost sermon):
“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ eis the forgiveness of your sins…”
Standard translations render eis here as “for” (purpose/result: “in order to obtain” or “unto” forgiveness). Some interpreters, however, have argued for a causal sense (“because of” forgiveness already received), which would make baptism a response to prior forgiveness rather than the means by which forgiveness is granted. This view has often been tied to theological debates about whether baptism is essential to salvation.
livingstoncoc.wordpress.com
Julius R. Mantey (a prominent Baptist Greek scholar and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament) championed the causal interpretation in the early 1950s. He conceded that no major Greek lexicons or grammars (except his own) listed a causal use for eis, but he appealed to usage in Hellenistic Greek (e.g., Polybius, Josephus) and several NT passages (including Matt 3:11, 12:41; Acts 2:38). His goal was to show that eis could sometimes look backward (causal) rather than forward (telic/purpose).
gbntv.org
The Debate in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1951–1952)
The exchange played out in four articles in the Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL):
- Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament” (JBL 70/1, March 1951: 45–48) — introduced the argument.
- Marcus, “On Causal Eis” (JBL 70/2, June 1951: 129–130) — point-by-point rebuttal.
- Mantey, “On Causal Eis Again” (JBL 70/4, Dec. 1951: 309–311) — reply.
- Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis” (JBL 71/1, March 1952: 43–44) — final response.
(livingstoncoc.wordpress.com +1)
(scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com)
The consensus among later Greek scholars is that Marcus won the linguistic argument.
What Daniel B. Wallace Said:
Daniel B. Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary), in his widely used Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), explicitly discusses the debate under the preposition eis. He calls it a “blow-by-blow encounter” and notes that Mantey’s motivation appeared to be theological (to protect “faith alone” by removing baptism from the forgiveness equation). Wallace then states:
“Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof.”
Wallace does not include “causal” as one of the recognized uses of eis in his grammar (he lists spatial, temporal, purpose, result, etc.). He therefore treats the traditional “for/purpose” rendering of Acts 2:38 as the grammatically supported one, while still offering other exegetical/theological ways to interpret the verse that do not make baptism essential for salvation.
In short:
- Mantey → argued for causal eis on the basis of extra-biblical and NT parallels (theological driver).
- Marcus → refuted every example on linguistic grounds; showed the evidence was “elusive.”
- Wallace (1996) → sided with Marcus on the grammar: no solid proof for causal eis.
Note that Prof. Daniel Wallace a well know Greek scholar of today sided with Dr Marcus, yet Wallace does not believe that baptism is required for salvation:
"Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that “the linguistic evidence for a causal eis” falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of the preposition an “ingenious solution” that “lacks conviction” (1996, 370-371)."
The Use of the Preposition "Eis" in Matthew 12:41
In Acts 2:38 Peter contended that baptism is "for" (eis) the remission of sins. Since many religionists deny this biblical truth, they seek comfort in a supposed parallel that they imagine nullifies the force of eis in Acts 2:38. Some imagine they have found a solution to their theological...
christiancourier.com
======================
A.T. Robertson, a prince among Baptist Greek scholars, gives one of the worst commentaries ever on Acts 2:38 where he writes: (my emp)
"Unto the remission of your sins (εις αφεσιν των αμαρτιων υμων). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of εις does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 εις δοξαν ημων (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of εις for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples εις ονομα προφητου, δικαιου, μαθητου where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (εις το κηρυγμα Ιωνα). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received."
As I put in bold above, Mr Robertson is essentially saying one's theological bias should dictate what the Bible says instead of letting the Bible speak for itself. In other words, it you don't like what a verse says...change the verse.
==================
"Even the renowned Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who attempted to twist Acts 2:38 into conformity with his personal theological agenda, was forced to surrender his position when discussing Matthew 26:28. Of the controversial phrase he stated:
In his massive Historical Grammar, Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame!"
The Preposition "Eis" in Acts 2:38
It has long been known that denominationalists, welded to the theory of salvation by "faith alone," repudiate the connection between baptism and the forgiveness of sins. Some, formally sound on this issue, now are capitulating to sectarian error. Take a brief look at this issue with us.
christiancourier.com
==========================
"In addition, J. R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion — see: H. E. Dana & J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04)."
Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"
In a new volume on Greek grammar, Dr. Daniel Wallace (of the Dallas Theological Seminary), has made a monumental concession which devastates a common denominational rationalization relative to the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38.
christiancourier.com
@Doug Brents
You never proved your statement, and the reason being is that you cannot, you said:
I said back:
No you didn't mention man doing spiritual acts pleasing to God, yet you claim man has a free will, meaning he can do certain spiritual acts pleasing to God, when the truth is man's will is in bondage to sin and Satan his master, and the flesh is not subject unto the word of God neither indeed can be. Yet, if man's will is free, then he could be subject unto the word of God without being in the Spirit.
The words "and of the" are not in the original text. It is simply "born of water and Spirit. It is an expression of a single act.
Oh please do not give me that tired old nonsense that water in those verses denotes amniotic fluid. Water was never used in that sense in the bible or in any other ancient writings. That is a purely made-up interpretation to avoid the truth.
With respect to Nicodemus' question, it may be taken as rhetorical. Jesus did, because He didn't even bother to answer the question but proceeded directly to a description of what He meant by being born again.
In water baptism as described in Peter's sermon in Acts 2:38, there are two results. One result is the forgiveness of sin and the other is the giving of the gift of the Spirit, neither of which is a physically observable result.
That verse rebuts any attempt to relate any of what Jesus is speaking about to the flesh. To be born again has nothing whatsoever to do with being born of the flesh. The flesh is unaffected by being born again. To be born again is correcting the damage done to the spirit as a result of sin.
Sorry, Red. That is total nonsense, Being born again has nothing to do with physical birth.
Being born again has nothing to do with God creating anything. It has to do with God fixing a damaged spirit.
Augustinian nonsense derived from Augustine's prior life as a student of Manichaeism. There is not one word in the whole of the Bible that would support such a view. Faith in God, in Christ, in the gospel is basis upon which God chooses to forgive, to justify, to regenerate, to sanctify the believer. God is the means for it all. God is the doer in all in all of it. He is the cause.
But it is not arbitrary. It is based upon what he sees in the one he forgives, justifies, regenerates, and initially sanctifies. It is only God who can actually "see" faith. It is only to God that faith can be considered as evidence. We cannot actually detect faith. So, it cannot be evidence of anything to us. God can actually detect faith. God knows the heart of man. God promises to reward those in whom He sees faith.
That is how Paul can say that anything is by faith. It is how he can say:
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
A child of God is one who has been forgiven, justified, regenerated, initially sanctified, born again, etc.
Red, you should take heart and deeply so at Galatians 1:8 because what you preach is without question another gospel. You, as you have said many times, you do not hold to all of TULIP. Red, NONE of TULIP is true. ALL of TULIP is another gospel.
Seabass
Active Member
I asked AI: Did Julius Mantey try and cite his own work to prove his case in claiming 'eis' can mean because of? (my emp)
Yes, Julius R. Mantey did cite his own work to support his argument for a causal meaning of the Greek preposition eis (εἰς) in the 1951–1952 debate.
What Mantey Said in His Opening Article
In his first Journal of Biblical Literature article (“The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70/1, March 1951, p. 45), Mantey openly acknowledged:
“None of the Greek lexicons translate εἰς as causal. And the only Greek grammar that does, as far as we know, is A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.” (his own lexicon)
He was one of the two co-authors of that grammar (with H. E. Dana, first published in 1927, with later editions). In the Manual Grammar (pp. 103–105 in the 1955 edition), Mantey and Dana had already listed a “causal” or “remote” use of eis and applied it to passages like Acts 2:38, Matt 3:11, and Luke 12:32—treating “for the forgiveness of sins” as potentially meaning “because of” forgiveness already received.
gbntv.org
Mantey’s strategy in the JBL debate was to argue that usage (from Hellenistic Greek authors like Polybius and Josephus, plus NT examples) should take priority over lexicons and other grammars. He presented his own earlier grammar as the one exception among standard reference works that already recognized the causal sense, essentially using it as supporting evidence for his broader claim.
How This Was Perceived
Critics and later observers have noted this as a weakness in Mantey’s position:
Summary
Yes—Mantey explicitly pointed to the Dana-Mantey Manual Grammar (of which he was co-author) as the sole grammar supporting causal eis, and he had already included the idea there years earlier (with a brief treatment of Acts 2:38). In the debate, this came across as self-referential support rather than independent corroboration from other authorities. He then tried to strengthen the case with extra-biblical and NT examples, but Marcus rebutted those point by point.This is a classic example in Greek scholarship where an author’s prior work was invoked in a later debate over the same topic.
======================================
In essence, Dr Marcus took Prof Mantey to the proverbial woodshed over the 'eis' debate.
Yes, Julius R. Mantey did cite his own work to support his argument for a causal meaning of the Greek preposition eis (εἰς) in the 1951–1952 debate.
What Mantey Said in His Opening Article
In his first Journal of Biblical Literature article (“The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70/1, March 1951, p. 45), Mantey openly acknowledged:
“None of the Greek lexicons translate εἰς as causal. And the only Greek grammar that does, as far as we know, is A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.” (his own lexicon)
He was one of the two co-authors of that grammar (with H. E. Dana, first published in 1927, with later editions). In the Manual Grammar (pp. 103–105 in the 1955 edition), Mantey and Dana had already listed a “causal” or “remote” use of eis and applied it to passages like Acts 2:38, Matt 3:11, and Luke 12:32—treating “for the forgiveness of sins” as potentially meaning “because of” forgiveness already received.
gbntv.org
Mantey’s strategy in the JBL debate was to argue that usage (from Hellenistic Greek authors like Polybius and Josephus, plus NT examples) should take priority over lexicons and other grammars. He presented his own earlier grammar as the one exception among standard reference works that already recognized the causal sense, essentially using it as supporting evidence for his broader claim.
How This Was Perceived
Critics and later observers have noted this as a weakness in Mantey’s position:
- He was essentially appealing to his own earlier statement in the Dana-Mantey grammar to bolster the very point he was now trying to prove more fully.
- Ralph Marcus, in his responses (“On Causal Eis,” JBL 70/2, 1951, and “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71/1, 1952), did not accept Mantey’s examples as valid causal uses and effectively showed that the linguistic evidence (including Mantey’s parallels) did not hold up.
Summary
Yes—Mantey explicitly pointed to the Dana-Mantey Manual Grammar (of which he was co-author) as the sole grammar supporting causal eis, and he had already included the idea there years earlier (with a brief treatment of Acts 2:38). In the debate, this came across as self-referential support rather than independent corroboration from other authorities. He then tried to strengthen the case with extra-biblical and NT examples, but Marcus rebutted those point by point.This is a classic example in Greek scholarship where an author’s prior work was invoked in a later debate over the same topic.
======================================
In essence, Dr Marcus took Prof Mantey to the proverbial woodshed over the 'eis' debate.
Doug Brents
Active Member
That is not what "free will" means.
You mistake the matter entirely.
Man is a slave. Period. He is either a slave of God, or a slave of Satan. There are only these two choices. There are no other masters out there.
And how is it determined which is our master?
"Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" Rom 6:16
So how is it determined whose slave we are? By the one whom we OBEY. It is our choice whom we obey. We determine who our master is.
Similar threads
- Sticky
