Posted on 09/09/2017 8:11:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Indeed, which is what I have argued, that faith without works is dead, but that it is the faith that is behind works that purifies the heart, and is counted for righteousness, as plainly shown and stated.
The woman of Canaan believed that the Lord could cast the devil out of her daughter and physically sought the Lord, and plead her case.
And her living faith appropriated the deliverance, without any action being required of her other than asking in faith.
The centurion in Matthew (who had obviously heard of the Lord) sent men to ask Jesus Christ to come, so that that his servant would be healed. As the Lord neared the home, the centurion then sent men to tell the Lord that he didn’t need to come into his house, just speak the word.
Likewise. Neither of this support baptism as the means of appropriating the Lord's action, though since actions require faith, the Lord could have required such.
The centurion in Acts (Cornelius) was devout, received the vision, and was told by angel “to call one Simon........he shall tell thee what thou ...... oughtest ....to ....do”. Acts 10:5,6 He sends men to fetch Simon.
But was still a lost man when he did, and was promised forgiveness by believing, which he and his household did and were born again, with God "purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 10:43; 15:9) This is contrary to having to be baptized in order to receive the washing of regeneration.
And later, Acts 2:38 was on display at that conversion.
And just how is (your understanding of) Acts 2:38 on display at that conversion? Those were were baptized had already realized the washing of regeneration, rather than baptism being required for this. .
And since Peter explains that God purified their hearts by faith, then it is interpretive of Acts 2:38, in which an action which required and expressed faith was commanded in order to receive what others would receive by simply believing, thus showing that it is the faith behind the actions that appropriates the promise. As said, since faith purifies the heart but those who obey are those who believe, thus we are promised salvation by believing, as well as by obeying, since the latter requires the former.
It’s that simple. Simple enough that a child can read that, believe, and obey.
Indeed.
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:43-48)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:7-11)
**And her living faith appropriated the deliverance, without any action being required of her other than asking in faith.**
He didn’t come to her, for he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. She had to go to him, and then plead her case.
But let’s look at your inconsistency:
You (and those like minded) say that the Holy Spirit comes the moment that a person believes. Yet the Samaritans believed and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, possibly a few days before Peter and John could be notified and come there. So by your reasoning, the washing of regeneration didn’t come when they first believed, nor after being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Yet you take a condensed story line from Acts 15, blowing off the urgency in which Peter commanded that Cornelius and his household be baptized.
The context of Acts 15 starts at the end of 14, in Antioch. A church with Gentile converts. Certain men came down from Judea, and taught the “brethren” (already born again) that they should be circumcised. The debate moved back to Jerusalem, where Peter had to reaffirm the first conversion of the Gentiles, and how they didn’t have to be circumcised then, and still shouldn’t have to be. James said that they should “trouble not
them, which from among the Gentiles are turned God”. Acts 15:19
So the brethren wrote to the brethren that they didn’t need to be circumcised, but should observe a few things.
It seems that your angle to diminish the plain wording of Acts 2:38.
Of course she made a response out of faith that Christ would help her, but it was her manifest effectual faith which appropriated her deliverance. Why do you keep arguing as i am arguing that salvific faith can be inert, or that the works which faith effects are what precisely appropriates the desired action of God ion salvation?
But let’s look at your inconsistency: You (and those like minded) say that the Holy Spirit comes the moment that a person believes. Yet the Samaritans believed and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, possibly a few days before Peter and John could be notified and come there. So by your reasoning, the washing of regeneration didn’t come when they first believed, nor after being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
If the Samaritans believed and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus but had not actually realized regeneration then that is your problem then as well as mine, since according to you believing and were baptized results in regeneration.
However, the text says while they believed and were baptized (Acts 8:12) as yet the Holy Spirit was fallen upon none of them, (Acts 8:16) which may indicate not simply regeneration but the baptism of the Spirit, which came as thru apostles laying hands on them, which is not seen in Acts 2 or in in Acts 10, while in the latter this manifest baptism is realized as a result of believing.
Then we have the Ethiopian eunuch was also simply baptized as a believer by Phillip, and went on his rejoicing to his country, with no apostle laying hands on him. But next, Ananias lays hands on Paul, being sent to him, "and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9:17-18; cf. 22:11-16) I believe both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch were already saved as baptized believers, but that the filling of the Spirit can be when believing or after. and be by conveyance from such a one "that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you...by the hearing of faith." (Galatians 3:5)
Yet you take a condensed story line from Acts 15, blowing off the urgency in which Peter commanded that Cornelius and his household be baptized. The context of Acts 15 starts at the end of 14, in Antioch. A church with Gentile converts. Certain men came down from Judea, and taught the “brethren” (already born again) that they should be circumcised. The debate moved back to Jerusalem, where Peter had to reaffirm the first conversion of the Gentiles, and how they didn’t have to be circumcised then, and still shouldn’t have to be. James said that they should “trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned God”. Acts 15:19 So the brethren wrote to the brethren that they didn’t need to be circumcised, but should observe a few things. It seems that your angle to diminish the plain wording of Acts 2:38.
You keep on talking about urgency as if judgment was about to fall if they could not be baptized immediately, when the text simply records this obedience which, as said, should take place at conversion, while ignoring what stares us in the face, which is that God promised and purified the hearts of lost souls by faith before baptism, which nothing contextually refutes.
The context of Acts 15 starts at the end of 14, in Antioch. A church with Gentile converts. Certain men came down from Judea, and taught the “brethren” (already born again) that they should be circumcised.
Yes?
The debate moved back to Jerusalem, where Peter had to reaffirm the first conversion of the Gentiles, and how they didn’t have to be circumcised then, and still shouldn’t have to be. James said that they should “trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned God”. Acts 15:19 So the brethren wrote to the brethren that they didn’t need to be circumcised, but should observe a few things.
Yes, so how does this change the fact that the Gentiles of Acts were not yet saved, but were promised the forgiveness of sins by believing on the Christ Peter described, and received the washing of regeneration by faith prior to baptism?
The context simply explains what Peter gave his testimony, that keeping the whole law as Judaizers insisted was necessary, was not necessary, since God saved these souls by gravce thru faith (on Christ's account).
''And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:7-11)
It seems that your angle to diminish the plain wording of Acts 2:38.
It seems that your angle is to diminish the plain wording of Acts 10:43; 15:7-11 which theologically is interpretive of the single sentence of Acts 2:38, revealing that it is the faith which baptism requires and expresses that appropriates the washing of regeneration and justification, faith being counted for righteousness. (Rm. 4:5)
**Then we have the Ethiopian eunuch was also simply baptized as a believer by Phillip, and went on his rejoicing to his country, with no apostle laying hands on him.**
And there you have an example of Jesus Christ’s command that “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned”. Unbelievers were not to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. First of all, a repentant heart was required. This repentant heart would be so because the message given was believed. Some devout folks, that simply needed to know about the Lord (Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius and kin, and the 12 in Ephesus), were ready for baptism in the name of Jesus, having already been living a repentant life.
The Ethiopian eunuch was apparently made aware of the urgency of being baptized, for he stopped the caravan immediately when he spotted water.
Ananias had obviously included water baptism in his conversion instructions to Paul, for it was without delay that he told Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 20:23
In Matt. 28:19, what thing does the Lord specifically mention must be done, when the disciples were commanded to go and teach all nations? That they were to baptize them (those they taught). Mark 16:15,16 give second witness to that. In Luke 24:47, the Lord commands them to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name. In John 20:23, we see the Lord giving them power to remit sins.
Acts 2:38 shows the first (post ascension) instructions given to souls that had been told about Jesus Christ.
The Calvinist church I belonged to until age 28, would have replied to their request of “what shall we do?”, with something like this:
Repent. And now that you believe, you have automatically received the Spirit. When convenient, and if others want to be present to watch, you can be baptized (in the titles) by sprinkling, as an outward sign of an inward cleansing.
And just how does this contradict my position, which is not that baptism required obedience, and is to require and express salvific faith, but that it is the faith which appropriates justification as Paul said, and purifies the heart, as Peter stated, not the action which faith effects. But since baptism is to require and express salvific faith, and not being baptized indicates lack of faith, thus the promise and the warning, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned”. (Mk. 16:15)
Unbelievers were not to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
On that we agree.
This repentant heart would be so because the message given was believed.
Actually while souls can be brought to repentance as regards their need to be saved ("what must I do to be saved?"), believing the gospel requires "repentance unto life," (Acts 11:18) turning from trust in any other gospel and Lord, placing wholehearted faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save, and which also means obeying that Lord, according to the light one has. There is believing one needs to be saved, sin being damnable, repenting from false beliefs on this and unbelief in the Lord Jesus, and then their is believing on this Lord Christ to save, implicitly repenting from false gospels and gods. Thanks be to God.
The Ethiopian eunuch was apparently made aware of the urgency of being baptized, for he stopped the caravan immediately when he spotted water.
Actually as a seeker who now saw and believed Christ as the prophesied Messiah, he earnestly wanted to be immediately baptized as commanded, which how every convert should act. Yet it remains that the faith that he expressed is what purifies the heart.
Ananias had obviously included water baptism in his conversion instructions to Paul, for it was without delay that he told Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 20:23
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:10)
Faith is what appropriates justification, as it did for Abraham, but the kind of faith that justifies is one that will confess the Lord Jesus, and which baptism formally does. Baptism can actually be the occasion when one first effectually believes, yet since it is still God "purifying their hearts by faith," and not the actual act of baptism, then conversion can precede baptism, and enables both the mute and the invalid to be saved.
In Matt. 28:19, what thing does the Lord specifically mention must be done, when the disciples were commanded to go and teach all nations? That they were to baptize them (those they taught). Mark 16:15,16 give second witness to that. In Luke 24:47, the Lord commands them to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name.
Which was never in dispute, but does not mean one cannot be born again before baptism, or that the acts appropriates justification, as in Catholicism,.
In John 20:23, we see the Lord giving them power to remit sins.
The meaning of which is seen in Acts and the epistles, and is not that of regular confessing of sins to a (unscriptural ) Catholic priest, or that of baptizing them. The devout disciple (not an apostle or pastor) Ananias did not executive remit any sins, but simply baptized Paul whose effectual faith justified him.
The Lord can have regard to the intercession of holy men, which presbuteros are to be, and remove His chastisement for sins, even those of ignorance, as the Lord did for the palsied man in Mk 2 due to the faith and intercession if his friends, and is what James 5:13-15 and their prayer of faith relates to, and in neither of which was confession required
But while major sins should be confessed to leadership, esp. those which could result in public scandal, and can together with the church can judicially bind or loose souls in discipline (1Co. 5; cf. Dt. 17:8-13), the only confession of sins that is commanded is to each other in general, to "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16) And the spiritual corporate power of binding and loosing is provided for all of holy fervent faith and prayer. (James 5:17-20; cf. Mt. 18:18-20)
But while you deny baptism to unbelievers, which would include infants who cannot repent (and have nothing to repent from), yet you sound like a Catholics as regards Jn. 20:23. What are you?
Acts 2:38 shows the first (post ascension) instructions given to souls that had been told about Jesus Christ.
Which provides no theological explanation, but which Peter provides in Acts 15 in declaring that God the Gentiles should heard the word of and God and believe, which he promised forgiveness for doing, and purified the hearts of the believing Gentiles by faith, which occurred before baptism. Thus as said, Acts 10 and 15 are interpretive of Acts 2:38, showing that it is the faith which baptism is to require and expressed which appropriates justification.
The Calvinist church I belonged to until age 28, would have replied to their request of “what shall we do?”, with something like this: Repent. And now that you believe, you have automatically received the Spirit. When convenient, and if others want to be present to watch, you can be baptized (in the titles) by sprinkling, as an outward sign of an inward cleansing.
Then that is incorrect, not only in assuming that a unconfessed faith is salvific, but in minimizing baptism as if it were an optional command or one that is not to take place at conversion, if possible, and then baptizing by sprinkling when immersion is possible. But it remains "that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," And God, which knoweth the hearts , bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9) Before baptism, but which immediately followed.
It’s not what you say “repent and turn to God” it’s how you say it.
Yes I am.
This post was quoted on Fundies Say the Darndest Things, a site where people rant about things posted on the internet rather than discuss them with the folks who posted them.
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=131480
People are not born homosexual. Rather it is likely that they encounter in their youth what we all encounter: confusion. But they then choose to accept, if by misplaced fascination or abuse or even cultural indoctrination now that we live in a Romans 1:18-32 kinda era, the product of irrational processes in their poorly remembered youth as if they were facts.
As for the punishment that comes from being unrepentant, what is to be done with those whose only nature in the resurrection is their old body of death? What is to be done with those who are unholy, lacking the Holy Spirit?
What Scripture describes is arguably a response to what a lost person is rather than what they’ve done.
I expressed this idea more fully here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1736726/posts
Why should it be left off FSTDT just because it’s old?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.