"EIS" OR "DIA" OR "HOTI" ??

[oldhermit]

The causal use of εἰς is found in Mt 12:41 and Lk 11:32. Whether it is translated as ‘at’ or as ‘because of,” these translations express cause. The preaching of Jonah caused the Ninevites to repent.

41. The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! (NRSV)

Luke 11:32. The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! (NRSV)

Merriam-Webster’s flagship unabridged dictionary, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, gives us the usages of the preposition ‘at.’ One of these usages is the one found in Mt 12:41b and Lk 11:32b, “5 — used as a function word to express means, agency, cause, source, or manner.”

Really. Show me a translation that has the guts to translate eis as 'because of' in either of these two passages; or any other passage in scripture for that matter. What makes you think I care anything about what Webster has to say about the use of 'at'?

Neither of these statement are true.

The causal use of εἰς is widely recognized in the very best Greek grammars, including the four volume work, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. In the third volume, entitled Syntax, Nigel Turner discusses on pages 266-267 the causal sense of εἰς and writes, “Some contexts would certainly suit a causal sense.”

Since i do not have in my possession a copy of Turner perhaps you would not mind posting the contents of those two pages for me. I have never seen this theory proposed by anyone prior to Robertson.

 

[Sagart]

Christ alone and His work saves us - not water baptism.

That is an anti-the gospel belief system. We are baptized into Christ ( in His body ) when we believe - that is the baptism that saves in relation to Christ's work on the cross and resurrection. That we died with Christ on the cross and rose to newness of life in Him.

Romans 6:3 (NASB)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


Water baptism is merely a representation of something that already occurred when we believed the message of Christ as can be seen in Cornelius and his household coming to belief in Christ.

If we don't receive the remission of sins until we are dunked in water ( of which is not shown in Cornelius ) then those people that come to the Lord before they die and don't get water baptized would be still in their sins. It's an anti-Christ belief system and it is not the gospel.

In saying that - I encourage all believers to get water baptized.

It is a great blessing from the Lord as it appeals to a good conscience concerning the truth that all our sins are forgiven and that we have a new life now in Christ.

Acts 2:38. Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NASB, 1995)

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NASB, 1995)

I first read these passages as a young Baptist and I wondered why my fellow Christians could not understand them. Today, I know why that was—their Baptist theology trumped the Scriptures in their thinking! I know that I was saved and subsequently baptized in the Holy Spirit before I was baptized in water, but I also know what Peter is saying in 1 Peter 3:18-22, and I am not willing to mutilate the grammar or change the meaning of the words in either the Greek text or the English translations to resolve a very real difference between what Peter wrote and what I personally experienced.

1 Peter 3:21 expressly says that “baptism now saves you.” The remaining portion of the verse expresses the fact that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” during water baptism that saves us, but it is the appeal to God through water baptism for a good conscious that saves us, and that this is made possible through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Ante-Nicene Church believed and taught that God’s grace for salvation is normatively conferred upon the believer through water baptism; and the large majority of Christians still believe that today.

 

[DJ2]

There is no contradiction. Whoever believes in Him "apart from additions or modifications" shall not perish, but have eternal life and there is a clear distinction between believing in Him "AND" getting water baptized afterwards.

There certainly is. In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they BELIEVED and this was before water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion after properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

In regards to Acts 22:16, as Greek scholar AT Robertson points out, baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, but it does not literally wash away our sins, contrary to your conclusion. In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism (Acts 10:43-47). In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (v. 15), although the apostle had not yet been baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear [His] name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15); such a commission is not God’s portion for one still lost and under wrath. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO. God accepted Paul’s prayers before his baptism (Acts 9:11). People in the church of Christ teach that God does not hear an unsaved man's prayer, quoting in this regard John 9:31 - "We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will." Well, Paul was a worshipper of God, calling Christ "Lord" and then setting out to do His will. All of these things characterized Paul before he was baptized. So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism. *No Scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa. *Perfect Harmony* with John 3:16.

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED. *Perfect Harmony* with John 3:16.

Says you.

You accept John 3:16 ONLY AFTER you erroneously try to "shoe horn" baptism "into" believes in Him.

I'm not surprised that you would resort to such faulty human logic which does not prove your point about John 3:16. Most "faith IN CHRIST ALONE sects" don't like to play games with works-salvationists. Proverbs 22:6 would include multiple instructions on how to train up a child. John 3:16 does not include a check list of works. The Bible is inspired by God and is not simply a novel that we come to fully understand through mere human intelligence.

You are making this out to be much more complicated than it really is. Unless you can tell me what it truly means to "believe in Him/believe the gospel" I must assume that you don't truly believe the gospel. You seem intent on choosing only verses that that fit your "watered down" works based false gospel. You must harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching the proper conclusion on doctrine instead of distorting and perverting passages of Scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan.

The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). That is scriptural and is not of my own making. Your gospel of salvation by "water and works" on the other hand is of your own making.

The spirit-filled Christian understands that salvation is by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9). The natural man does not understand...and is spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). The gospel is hid to those who don't believe (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).

Whoever believes in Him "apart from additions or modifications" shall not perish, but have eternal life is absolutely true. "Adding" water baptism and other works to "believes in Him" is faulty reasoning no matter how you label it. You obviously don't understand what it truly means to "believe in Him/believe the gospel."

Your clearly forced attempt to harmonize these scriptures by using extreme leaps of faith and grammar proves my point. No one would come to these conclusions unless there was a theological reason. In other words, you were taught this.

Even you don't take John 3:16 as an absolute. You cherry-pick the parts of the verse that fits your narrative and ignore the rest.

"everyone who believes" = well not absolutely, just those who believe the right way.

""will not die" = well not absolutely, you will die but be raised again.

What is absolutely true is this, God expects obedience.

 

[mailmandan]

Your clearly forced attempt to harmonize these scriptures by using extreme leaps of faith and grammar proves my point. No one would come to these conclusions unless there was a theological reason. In other words, you were taught this.

I properly harmonized Scripture with Scripture in order to reach the only logical conclusion on doctrine and it did not take a leap of faith in grammar either. The Bible is not simply a text book that only the most intellectual people can understand, but is inspired by God and believers are not taught in words supplied in human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit. See 1 Corinthians 2:11-14.

Even you don't take John 3:16 as an absolute. You cherry-pick the parts of the verse that fits your narrative and ignore the rest.

"everyone who believes" = well not absolutely, just those who believe the right way.

I have not cherry picked anything (typical Campbellite argument). Everyone who believes IN HIM (absolutely) shall not perish, but have eternal life. *No mention of baptism. *Notice also in John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who (is not water baptized? NO) does not believe is condemned already, because (he has not been water baptized? NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Now put away your shoe horn and BELIEVE IN HIM.

""will not die" = well not absolutely, you will die but be raised again.

Shall not perish, but have eternal life = shall not perish, but have eternal life.

What is absolutely true is this, God expects obedience.

Obedience/good works is produced out of faith and believers are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

 

[shakinah]

i thought that trusting Jesus wasn't enough for salvation, as moses led many from captivity that never entered the promise land, i thought letting Jesus be Lord of your life was part of the deal.

 

[DJ2]

I properly harmonized Scripture with Scripture in order to reach the only logical conclusion on doctrine and it did not take a leap of faith in grammar either. The Bible is not simply a text book that only the most intellectual people can understand, but is inspired by God and believers are not taught in words supplied in human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit. See 1 Corinthians 2:11-14.

I have not cherry picked anything (typical Campbellite argument). Everyone who believes IN HIM (absolutely) shall not perish, but have eternal life. *No mention of baptism. *Notice also in John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who (is not water baptized? NO) does not believe is condemned already, because (he has not been water baptized? NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Now put away your shoe horn and BELIEVE IN HIM.

Shall not perish, but have eternal life = shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Obedience/good works is produced out of faith and believers are saved FOR good works and NOT BY good works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

If John 3:16 is such an all-encompassing definitive and absolute statement why do you have to "believe" a certain way. if your theology is based on such verses not being general in nature why are you "shoehorning" your particular type of believing? If the verses are so stand alone and means salvation based on faith alone, why are you pushing this "trust only" litmus test. A test that faith only sects force upon others.

"If you don't believe like us God must be blinding you."

I grow wary of the forced theology you and your kind present. It goes against the very fabric of the entire Bible. God has always demanded obedience to receive or keep His rewards. Your sects push a God that does not exist, a non-questioning grace offering Jesus. Spreading this lie, knowing that the Bible never once records Jesus ever even mentioning the word.

The Jesus of the gospels is a savior that came expecting action on our part not after our salvation but before. Not works of merit but works of obedience. The blind man's healing after obeying was not a reward for merit but the point of healing, a necessary point.

So you can keep your "trust only" theology based on general statements. I will follow Samuel who rebuked those who thought obedience was secondary. Your self-righteous "trust" is nothing but the "fat of rams". 1st. Samuel 15:22

"but for me and my family, we will serve (not trust only) the Lord". Joshua 24:15b

 

[Johnny_B]

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NASB, 1995)

I first read these passages as a young Baptist and I wondered why my fellow Christians could not understand them. Today, I know why that was—their Baptist theology trumped the Scriptures in their thinking! I know that I was saved and subsequently baptized in the Holy Spirit before I was baptized in water, but I also know what Peter is saying in 1 Peter 3:18-22, and I am not willing to mutilate the grammar or change the meaning of the words in either the Greek text or the English translations to resolve a very real difference between what Peter wrote and what I personally experienced.

1 Peter 3:21 expressly says that “baptism now saves you.” The remaining portion of the verse expresses the fact that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” during water baptism that saves us, but it is the appeal to God through water baptism for a good conscious that saves us, and that this is made possible through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Ante-Nicene Church believed and taught that God’s grace for salvation is normatively conferred upon the believer through water baptism; and the large majority of Christians still believe that today.

I don't see it talking about water baptism at all, as I once did, I thought it was the only verse outside of Acts that talked about water baptism, but it doesn't even talk about water baptism. I Peter 3:21-22 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."

The baptism that now saves us, it corresponds or an anti-type as the KJV puts it. The water referred to in verse 20 is a view of the baptism in the Spirit, which does not remove dirt like water, but it is an appeal/answer to God of/for a good conscience. Again the word "for" is it to get a good conscience or because we already have a good conscience? Since it's through the resurrection which justifies us (Romans 4:25) and we are justified by faith (Romans 3:28, 5:1, Galatians 2:16, 3:24) it is because we receive a good conscience by the baptism of the Spirit.

With that I now see no verse outside of Acts that teach on water baptism. Romans 6:4 and 7:6 both use "καινότητι" ESV, HCSB translates it "new way" KJV, NKJV "newness" of the Spirit, the newness that we walk in 6:4 is of the Spirit, not of water baptism. It is referring to the born again experience, this newness of life or regeneration.

Galatians 2:12 "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." In baptism you are buried and raised by faith and we know that faith justifies at which point we are baptized by the Spirit, this verse verifies that Romans 6:3-4 is talking about the Spirit's baptism.

 

[mailmandan]

If John 3:16 is such an all-encompassing definitive and absolute statement why do you have to "believe" a certain way.

Because saving belief involves "trust and reliance" and not simply mental assent belief. The demons "believe" that "there is one God" (James 2:19) and they also believe "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Christ, but they do not BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and are not saved (Acts 16:31). In other words, they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith reliance upon Christ for salvation.

if your theology is based on such verses not being general in nature why are you "shoehorning" your particular type of believing?

Properly defining what it means to BELIEVE in Jesus to receive eternal life is not "shoehorning" anything into believing. It's you who tries to "shoe horn" baptism "into" believing, but the shoe does not fit.

If the verses are so stand alone and means salvation based on faith alone, why are you pushing this "trust only" litmus test. A test that faith only sects force upon others.

If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then God would not make so many statements in which He promises salvation to those who simply BELIEVE (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 10:4; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

"If you don't believe like us God must be blinding you."

Those who don't believe the gospel (the true gospel) are blinded by the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).

I grow wary of the forced theology you and your kind present. It goes against the very fabric of the entire Bible. God has always demanded obedience to receive or keep His rewards.

I grow wary of the erroneous theology you and your kind present. Your false gospel is the result of bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics. You don't seem to understand the difference between receiving the gift of eternal life by grace through faith and receiving rewards and loss of rewards (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 3:13-15).

Your sects push a God that does not exist, a non-questioning grace offering Jesus. Spreading this lie, knowing that the Bible never once records Jesus ever even mentioning the word.

I don't appreciate your slander or your straw man arguments.

The Jesus of the gospels is a savior that came expecting action on our part not after our salvation but before.

John 6:28 - Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" (sound familiar?) 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent. The action that saves is choosing to BELIEVE IN HIM. All other action/multiple acts of obedience/good works FOLLOWS saving belief in Christ. When will you BELIEVE?

Not works of merit but works of obedience.

That is just sugar coated double talk and is a distinction without a difference, if works of obedience which follow saving belief/faith in Christ are the means of our salvation. You clearly teach salvation by works.

The blind man's healing after obeying was not a reward for merit but the point of healing, a necessary point.

The blind man received healing (from blindness) after obeying and not the gift of eternal life.

So you can keep your "trust only" theology based on general statements.

You can keep your works-based false gospel based on bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics, which renders Christ an IN-sufficient Savior.

I will follow Samuel who rebuked those who thought obedience was secondary. Your self-righteous "trust" is nothing but the "fat of rams". 1st. Samuel 15:22

Samuel stated that God desires obedience over the ritual sacrifice of animals. The sacrificial system was never intended to function in place of living an obedient life, but was rather to be an expression of it. Salvation by works is not obedience. Your self-righteous "trust in works" is nothing but the "fat of rams." My trust is in CHRIST ALONE for salvation and my obedience which follows is the fruit of saving faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is the root of salvation and good works which follow are the fruit. You put the cart before the horse.

"but for me and my family, we will serve (not trust only) the Lord". Joshua 24:15b

If we are not trusting in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation, (without faith it's impossible to please God) then we are not serving the Lord, no matter how much "so called obedience" that we attempt to conjure up through the flesh in a vain effort to receive salvation by works, as many people will learn the hard way after it's too late (Matthew 7:21-23).

 

[DJ2]

Because saving belief involves "trust and reliance" and not simply mental assent belief. The demons "believe" that "there is one God" (James 2:19) and they also believe "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Christ, but they do not BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and are not saved (Acts 16:31). In other words, they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith reliance upon Christ for salvation.

Properly defining what it means to BELIEVE in Jesus to receive eternal life is not "shoehorning" anything into believing. It's you who tries to "shoe horn" baptism "into" believing, but the shoe does not fit.

If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then God would not make so many statements in which He promises salvation to those who simply BELIEVE (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 10:4; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

[/B]Those who don't believe the gospel (the true gospel) are blinded by the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:3,4). I grow wary of the erroneous theology you and your kind present. Your false gospel is the result of bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics. You don't seem to understand the difference between receiving the gift of eternal life by grace through faith and receiving rewards and loss of rewards (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 3:13-15).

I don't appreciate your slander or your straw man arguments.

[/COLOR]John 6:28 - Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" (sound familiar?) 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent. The action that saves is choosing to BELIEVE IN HIM. All other action/multiple acts of obedience/good works FOLLOWS saving belief in Christ. When will you BELIEVE?

That is just sugar coated double talk and is a distinction without a difference, if works of obedience which follow saving belief/faith in Christ are the means of our salvation. You clearly teach salvation by works.

The blind man received healing (from blindness) after obeying and not the gift of eternal life.

You can keep your works-based false gospel based on bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics, which renders Christ an IN-sufficient Savior.

Samuel stated that God desires obedience over the ritual sacrifice of animals. The sacrificial system was never intended to function in place of living an obedient life, but was rather to be an expression of it. Salvation by works is not obedience. Your self-righteous "trust in works" is nothing but the "fat of rams." My trust is in CHRIST ALONE for salvation and my obedience which follows is the fruit of saving faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is the root of salvation and good works which follow are the fruit. You put the cart before the horse.

If we are not trusting in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation, (without faith it's impossible to please God) then we are not serving the Lord, no matter how much "so called obedience" that we attempt to conjure up through the flesh in a vain effort to receive salvation by works, as many people will learn the hard way after it's too late (Matthew 7:21-23).

You can not have it both ways, either John 3:16 is an absolute statement which other verses must be filtered through or it is not. You are but changing the meaning of the verse by using "believe on" when every version I could find used "believe in", as well as adding "entrust" to its meaning. To be clear I too believe these things but they are not necessarily conveyed in this verse, you are assuming these meanings which should not be needed in an absolute statement.

On accepting a definitive statement the most basic definition is assumed. If we are allowed to use a myriad of definitions the verse is meaningless. You can believe without baptism but you can not have baptism without belief.

On your list of verses, please notice that not even one of them use "simply BELIEVE" as you state. When you find yourself adding words to scripture to modify their meaning you should reconsider your theology. You are making a common mistake and do not even notice it. If those verses meant "simply BELIEVE" they would have been written that way. The writers of those verses do not need you to add to them. Not even one of your scriptures is written this way. This should is you pause for concern.

Truth is the best defense against slander. You have no defense.

 

[mailmandan]

You can not have it both ways, either John 3:16 is an absolute statement which other verses must be filtered through or it is not.

It's absolutely true that those who BELIEVE IN HIM shall not perish, but have eternal life. You can't have it both ways. Either we are saved through BELIEVING IN HIM or else we are saved by works. Either Christ did it all or else we did some of it.

You are but changing the meaning of the verse by using "believe on" when every version I could find used "believe in", as well as adding "entrust" to its meaning.

Another straw man argument. "Believes in" (NKJV; NIV) and "believes on" (ASV; KJV) are used interchangeably in different translations in John 3:18 and John 3:36, so there is no change in meaning. The word translated "believe" is from the greek word pisteuō (Strong's #4100) which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ).

To be clear I too believe these things but they are not necessarily conveyed in this verse, you are assuming these meanings which should not be needed in an absolute statement.

The meaning is clear. You are assuming that "believes in Him" means salvation by mere mental assent belief + works.

On accepting a definitive statement the most basic definition is assumed. If we are allowed to use a myriad of definitions the verse is meaningless. You can believe without baptism but you can not have baptism without belief.

You can believe and not yet be water baptized and if you truly believe, then you would not refuse to be water baptized. You don't baptize unbelievers in order to make them believers, but BECAUSE they are believers.

On your list of verses, please notice that not even one of them use "simply BELIEVE" as you state.

I was not implying that the word "simply" was spelled out in those verses. I was implying that the word BELIEVE/BELIEVES "apart from additions or modifications" was spelled out, but I'm sure that you already knew that. Another straw man argument.

When you find yourself adding words to scripture to modify their meaning you should reconsider your theology.

I did not add words to scripture and that is the pot calling the kettle black. You "add" baptism to "BELIEVES IN HIM" so you should reconsider your theology.

You are making a common mistake and do not even notice it. If those verses meant "simply BELIEVE" they would have been written that way. The writers of those verses do not need you to add to them. Not even one of your scriptures is written this way. This should is you pause for concern.

If those verses meant whoever "gets water baptized" then they would have been written that way. The writers of those verses do not need you to add "water and works" to them. Not even one of those scriptures is written that way. This should be a big concern for you.

Truth is the best defense against slander. You have no defense.

I have the truth and that is my defense. All you have is a perverted gospel, straw man arguments and slander.

 

[Sagart]

I don't see it talking about water baptism at all, as I once did, I thought it was the only verse outside of Acts that talked about water baptism, but it doesn't even talk about water baptism. I Peter 3:21-22 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."

The baptism that now saves us, it corresponds or an anti-type as the KJV puts it. The water referred to in verse 20 is a view of the baptism in the Spirit, which does not remove dirt like water, but it is an appeal/answer to God of/for a good conscience. Again the word "for" is it to get a good conscience or because we already have a good conscience? Since it's through the resurrection which justifies us (Romans 4:25) and we are justified by faith (Romans 3:28, 5:1, Galatians 2:16, 3:24) it is because we receive a good conscience by the baptism of the Spirit.

1 Peter 3:20. who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NRSV)

Peter’s syntax is absolutely clear, and however we may interpret his teaching, our interpretation must agree completely with his syntax. In verse 20, he says that eight persons were saved through water (διεσώθησαν δι᾿ ὕδατος). He does not say that eight persons were saved through baptism in the Spirit. In verse 20, he says that this salvation through water prefigured baptism. A word –for-word translation here is “Which antitype also now saves you.” Syntactically, baptism is here the antitype of “salvation through water.” Therefore, there is absolutely no question but what Peter is saying that water baptism now saves, and he elaborates by expressing the fact that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” during water baptism that saves us, but it is the appeal to God through water baptism for a good conscious that saves, and that this is made possible through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

With that I now see no verse outside of Acts that teach on water baptism. Romans 6:4 and 7:6 both use "καινότητι" ESV, HCSB translates it "new way" KJV, NKJV "newness" of the Spirit, the newness that we walk in 6:4 is of the Spirit, not of water baptism. It is referring to the born again experience, this newness of life or regeneration.

Rom. 6:3. Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4. Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

In verses 3-4, Paul is telling the Christians in Rome that everyone who has been baptized into Christ Jesus has been baptized into His death. That is, they have been buried with Him by baptism into death, so that (ἵνα) just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, they too might walk in newness of life (ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς).

This passage is speaking of water baptism by immersion which is a type of our being buried with Christ, and then being raised up with Him. Paul is teaching here that Christians are baptized in water in order that (ἵνα) they might walk in newness of life; that is, in order that they might be born again. There no mention of the Holy Spirit in this entire chapter!

Galatians 2:12 "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." In baptism you are buried and raised by faith and we know that faith justifies at which point we are baptized by the Spirit, this verse verifies that Romans 6:3-4 is talking about the Spirit's baptism.

Colossians (not Galatians) 2:12. when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (NRSV)

Not so! We were buried with Christ in water baptism—not in “the Spirit's baptism.” Let us not confuse what we experience today regarding water baptism with what the early church experienced. That which the Bible expressly says regarding water baptism, and what I have personally experienced regarding water baptism, are two very different things, but I do not allow one to change the other. Moreover, we do not find in the New Testament a consistent chronology concerning water and spirit baptism. For an excellent 390-page case-study of the chronology concerning water baptism, spirit baptism, and the Pentecostal experience in the early church and modern times, please see A Theology of the Holy Spirit by Frederick Dale Bruner.

 

[DJ2]

It's absolutely true that those who BELIEVE IN HIM shall not perish, but have eternal life. You can't have it both ways. Either we are saved through BELIEVING IN HIM or else we are saved by works. Either Christ did it all or else we did some of it.

Another straw man argument. "Believes in" (NKJV; NIV) and "believes on" (ASV; KJV) are used interchangeably in different translations in John 3:18 and John 3:36, so there is no change in meaning. The word translated "believe" is from the greek word pisteuō (Strong's #4100) which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ).

The meaning is clear. You are assuming that "believes in Him" means salvation by mere mental assent belief + works.

You can believe and not yet be water baptized and if you truly believe, then you would not refuse to be water baptized. You don't baptize unbelievers in order to make them believers, but BECAUSE they are believers.

I was not implying that the word "simply" was spelled out in those verses. I was implying that the word BELIEVE/BELIEVES "apart from additions or modifications" was spelled out, but I'm sure that you already knew that. Another straw man argument.

I did not add words to scripture and that is the pot calling the kettle black. You "add" baptism to "BELIEVES IN HIM" so you should reconsider your theology.

If those verses meant whoever "gets water baptized" then they would have been written that way. The writers of those verses do not need you to add "water and works" to them. Not even one of those scriptures is written that way. This should be a big concern for you.

I have the truth and that is my defense. All you have is a perverted gospel, straw man arguments and slander.

Your message is off base. I never said or implied baptism is mentioned in your verses (a true straw man). You know this.

It is you by adding "simply" to your verses that is changing its meaning from general to definitive. This is faulty reasoning. Plain and simple, if you need to add to your "go to" verses something is wrong with your theology.

I do not add to verses such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 or 1st Peter 3:21. They do not need "simply" for them to be understood. It is you who is modifying John 3:16 by inserting your litmus test of "believing + trusting + only". If John 3:16 is complete we don't need your understanding of belief. The verse will stand on its own.

The reason not one Bible version (paraphrased or not) uses "simply believe" in John 3:16 is the same reason not one Bible uses "because of" in Acts 2:38. "Simply believing" will not save nor will "simply baptized" save you. Works will not save and neither one of them is a work.

 

[mailmandan]

Your message is off base. I never said or implied baptism is mentioned in your verses (a true straw man). You know this.

I was not implying that you said baptism was "specifically mentioned" (as in spelled out) in those verses, yet according to your reasoning, it's included in BELIEVES IN HIM. Right? On many occasions, I've heard Campbellites say that "believe" includes baptism. Here is a quote from a Campbellite that I was previously in a debate with on CC: So "believe" in the NT is sometimes used as a synecdoche where it includes repentance confession and baptism.Is that what you believe as well?

It is you by adding "simply" to your verses that is changing its meaning from general to definitive. This is faulty reasoning. Plain and simple, if you need to add to your "go to" verses something is wrong with your theology.

I already explained to you that I was not implying that the word "simply" was spelled out in those verses. I was implying that the word BELIEVE/BELIEVES "apart from additions or modifications" was spelled out. No faulty reasoning at all and there was no change in meaning. Your straw man argument is getting old.

I do not add to verses such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 or 1st Peter 3:21.

No, you just misinterpret them and your misinterpretations of these verses does not harmonize with (Luke 24:47; John 3:15,16,18; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18 etc..).

They do not need "simply" for them to be understood.

Enough with the "simply" straw man argument. John 3:16 clearly states that whoever "BELIEVES IN HIM" (apart from additions or modifications) shall not perish, but have eternal life (NASB). Plain and simple.

It is you who is modifying John 3:16 by inserting your litmus test of "believing + trusting + only".

Believing is not mere "mental assent" belief here. If it were, then even the demons would be saved. They "believe" that "there is one God" (James 2:19) and they also believe in the existence and historical facts about Christ, BUT they do not "believe" on the Lord Jesus Christ and are NOT saved (Acts 16:31). As I explained to you before, the word translated "believe" is from the greek word pisteuō (Strong's #4100) which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to *entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ).

If John 3:16 is complete we don't need your understanding of belief. The verse will stand on its own.

John 3:16 is not an incomplete statement that needs to be "patched together" with verses on baptism in order to get the big picture. It's not merely my understanding of belief. Since you are having such a hard time grasping the Biblical definition of belief, then why don't you explain to me your understanding of belief.

The reason not one Bible version (paraphrased or not) uses "simply believe" in John 3:16 is the same reason not one Bible uses "because of" in Acts 2:38.

You don't need to add the word "simply" next to "believes" in John 3:16 in order to figure out that the word(s) believes (in Him) "stand alone" in John 3:16 in connection with receiving eternal life. Does John 3:16 say "believes in Him" plus something else? NO. Plain and simple, but you make it complicated.

Also, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis. Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. *Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

"Simply believing" will not save nor will "simply baptized" save you.

Luke 8:12 - ..believe and be saved. John 3:16 - ..whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Acts 13:39 - All that believe are justified from all things.. Romans 1:16 - ..the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.. hmm... *NOWHERE does the Bible say that whoever is NOT water baptized will NOT be saved, yet what does John 3:18 say?

Works will not save and neither one of them is a work.

Through believing, we (believer's) are trusting in Another's work - "Christ's finished work of redemption." If water baptism is not a work, then what is it? Just a nothing? Does no work at all get accomplished when someone is water baptized? Water baptism is clearly a work of righteousness (Matthew 3:15) and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5).

 

[DJ2]

I was not implying that you said baptism was "specifically mentioned" (as in spelled out) in those verses, yet according to your reasoning, it's included in BELIEVES IN HIM. Right? On many occasions, I've heard Campbellites say that "believe" includes baptism. Here is a quote from a Campbellite that I was previously in a debate with on CC: So "believe" in the NT is sometimes used as a synecdoche where it includes repentance confession and baptism.Is that what you believe as well?

I already explained to you that I was not implying that the word "simply" was spelled out in those verses. I was implying that the word BELIEVE/BELIEVES "apart from additions or modifications" was spelled out. No faulty reasoning at all and there was no change in meaning. Your straw man argument is getting old.

No, you just misinterpret them and your misinterpretations of these verses does not harmonize with (Luke 24:47; John 3:15,16,18; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18 etc..).

Enough with the "simply" straw man argument. John 3:16 clearly states that whoever "BELIEVES IN HIM" (apart from additions or modifications) shall not perish, but have eternal life (NASB). Plain and simple.

Believing is not mere "mental assent" belief here. If it were, then even the demons would be saved. They "believe" that "there is one God" (James 2:19) and they also believe in the existence and historical facts about Christ, BUT they do not "believe" on the Lord Jesus Christ and are NOT saved (Acts 16:31). As I explained to you before, the word translated "believe" is from the greek word pisteuō (Strong's #4100) which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to *entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ).

John 3:16 is not an incomplete statement that needs to be "patched together" with verses on baptism in order to get the big picture. It's not merely my understanding of belief. Since you are having such a hard time grasping the Biblical definition of belief, then why don't you explain to me your understanding of belief.

You don't need to add the word "simply" next to "believes" in John 3:16 in order to figure out that the word(s) believes (in Him) "stand alone" in John 3:16 in connection with receiving eternal life. Does John 3:16 say "believes in Him" plus something else? NO. Plain and simple, but you make it complicated.

Also, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis. Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. *Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

Luke 8:12 - ..believe and be saved. John 3:16 - ..whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Acts 13:39 - All that believe are justified from all things.. Romans 1:16 - ..the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.. hmm... *NOWHERE does the Bible say that whoever is NOT water baptized will NOT be saved, yet what does John 3:18 say?

Through believing, we (believer's) are trusting in Another's work - "Christ's finished work of redemption." If water baptism is not a work, then what is it? Just a nothing? Does no work at all get accomplished when someone is water baptized? Water baptism is clearly a work of righteousness (Matthew 3:15) and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5).

Teaching that obedience follows salvation is absurd. Obedience leading to salvation is the "flow and form" of the entire Bible. God does not give His reward and then hope for our obedience. Your mention of a reward not equaling salvation is a distinction without a difference, salvation is the greatest reward of all.

Believing and trusting does not equal obedience nor is it a guarantee of either. Many people believe and trust their parents will provide for them but a parent can require that the child to obey to stay in "their good graces", regardless of the child's trust.

God does not want your trust, He commands your obedience. Isaiah 1:18-20 "obey or die"

 

[mailmandan]

Teaching that obedience follows salvation is absurd.

Teaching that obedience precedes salvation is absurd. Without faith it's impossible to please God and we are saved through faith, FIRST. Obedience/good works follow salvation. *Notice the order. Saved by grace through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus UNTO/FOR good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). You have it backwards. You have the tail wagging the dog. The cart before the horse.

Obedience leading to salvation is the "flow and form" of the entire Bible. God does not give His reward and then hope for our obedience. Your mention of a reward not equaling salvation is a distinction without a difference, salvation is the greatest reward of all.

Salvation is not based on the merits of our obedience/good works and eternal life/salvation is a gift that we receive through faith and is not a reward that we work for and earn (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9). Also see Romans 5:15-18. *Notice in 1 Corinthians 3:13 - each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; (of reward) but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. There is a difference between a gift and a reward.

Believing and trusting does not equal obedience nor is it a guarantee of either. Many people believe and trust their parents will provide for them but a parent can require that the child to obey to stay in "their good graces", regardless of the child's trust.

Believing/trusting results in obedience (to one degree or the other). All genuine believers (Christians) are fruitful, but not all are equally fruitful (Matthew 13:23). You are trying to turn the grace of God into a self righteous, works system of merit.

God does not want your trust, He commands your obedience. Isaiah 1:18-20 "obey or die"

You are confusing a descriptive passage of Scripture with a prescriptive passage of Scripture. Is "consent and obey" descriptive of believers or unbelievers? Is "refuse and rebel" descriptive of believers or unbelievers? Who was the Lord addressing here? The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz concerning Judah and Jerusalem, which he saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah (vs. 1). ISRAEL.

 

[DJ2]

Teaching that obedience precedes salvation is absurd. Without faith it's impossible to please God and we are saved through faith, FIRST. Obedience/good works follow salvation. *Notice the order. Saved by grace through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus UNTO/FOR good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). You have it backwards. You have the tail wagging the dog. The cart before the horse.

Salvation is not based on the merits of our obedience/good works and eternal life/salvation is a gift that we receive through faith and is not a reward that we work for and earn (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9). Also see Romans 5:15-18. *Notice in 1 Corinthians 3:13 - each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; (of reward) but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. There is a difference between a gift and a reward.

Believing/trusting results in obedience (to one degree or the other). All genuine believers (Christians) are fruitful, but not all are equally fruitful (Matthew 13:23). You are trying to turn the grace of God into a self righteous, works system of merit.

You are confusing a descriptive passage of Scripture with a prescriptive passage of Scripture. Is "consent and obey" descriptive of believers or unbelievers? Is "refuse and rebel" descriptive of believers or unbelievers? Who was the Lord addressing here? The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz concerning Judah and Jerusalem, which he saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah (vs. 1). ISRAEL.

You are but fighting the obvious.

No amount of your banter can change the fact that of the countless versions of the Bible, whether English or not, whether old or new, whether paraphrased or not uses "because of" in Acts 2:38.

No amount of spin can change the fact that no court, no paralegal, no judge, no lawyer, no notary or any person who studies binding agreements would ever accept verses such as John 3:16 as absolute expressions of intent.

Your hope is based on these verses being all-encompassing. If you are right then the rest of the Bible is but secondary in nature. A non-binding group of commands to be encouraged but not of any lasting consequence. Believe that by limiting yourself to trusting only, all else will fall into place. Do any thing other than trust for remission of sins and God will curse you with blindness. Is this your gospel? Am I close?

If I took out the biblical words and replaced them with secular words you would never accept them as definitive.

Example: "the jailer, greatly concerned, approached the two, falling before them and pleading, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

or "the student, greatly concerned, approached the teachers, head lowered and pleading, "Sirs, what must I do to pass your class?" The teachers replied, "Study diligently and you will pass."

Now which statement is definitive?

Neither. And believing that they are is folly.

 

[mailmandan]

You are but fighting the obvious.

No, you are fighting the obvious.

No amount of your banter can change the fact that of the countless versions of the Bible, whether English or not, whether old or new, whether paraphrased or not uses "because of" in Acts 2:38.

I already explained to you in post #153 that in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. *Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

*No amount of banter can change this fact.

No amount of spin can change the fact that no court, no paralegal, no judge, no lawyer, no notary or any person who studies binding agreements would ever accept verses such as John 3:16 as absolute expressions of intent.

No amount of spin can change the fact that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM "apart from additions or modifications" shall not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). When will you stop fighting against the truth and BELIEVE IN HIM?

Your hope is based on these verses being all-encompassing. If you are right then the rest of the Bible is but secondary in nature. A non-binding group of commands to be encouraged but not of any lasting consequence. Believe that by limiting yourself to trusting only, all else will fall into place. Do any thing other than trust for remission of sins and God will curse you with blindness.

That salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works is not hard to understand. It's just hard for you to ACCEPT. It's a tragedy that human pride will not allow you to trust exclusively in Christ for salvation. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save. No supplements needed. When will you BELIEVE?

Is this your gospel? Am I close?

My gospel is the same gospel that Paul preached. The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works (including water baptism) to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation. The gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen as the Savior of all who BELIEVE/TRUST in His finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation.

If I took out the biblical words and replaced them with secular words you would never accept them as definitive.

You continue to make this out to be a lot more complicated than it really is.

Example: "the jailer, greatly concerned, approached the two, falling before them and pleading, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

*Notice that Paul and Silas replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved," and NOT "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and get water baptized and you will be saved."

or "the student, greatly concerned, approached the teachers, head lowered and pleading, "Sirs, what must I do to pass your class?" The teachers replied, "Study diligently and you will pass."

Now which statement is definitive?
Neither. And believing that they are is folly.

This is not a classroom, you are not my teacher, I am not your student. Did Paul and Silas provide a solution or final answer to the question? YES

Your faulty human logic is folly.

 

[fredoheaven]

aha, the so called 'doctrine of preposition'...typical doctrine of Campbelites...no versions of the Bible has translated eis as 'because of' since the the English word 'for' has it's meaning of. Even 'so that' has its twofold usage which is the intended result/effect and the second is the action/cause thus the context determines its meaning. In case of Acts 2:38. my view is that eis means 'because of'

God bless

 

[plaintalk]

DJ2- If Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace is available to you check out the article on a causal eis, pgs 369- 371. J. R. Mantey entered into a discussion with Ralph Marcus about translating eis as "because of." Although Wallace also holds with Mantey, that baptism was not the cause of salvation, he did not support Mantey's position. Wallace wrote, "In sum, although Mantey's instincts were surely correct that in Luke's theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal eis, lacks conviction." Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16) He has it right. God bless.

 

[DJ2]

DJ2- If Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace is available to you check out the article on a causal eis, pgs 369- 371. J. R. Mantey entered into a discussion with Ralph Marcus about translating eis as "because of." Although Wallace also holds with Mantey, that baptism was not the cause of salvation, he did not support Mantey's position. Wallace wrote, "In sum, although Mantey's instincts were surely correct that in Luke's theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal eis, lacks conviction." Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16) He has it right. God bless.

Thank you for the reply but who is the "He" in 'He has it right'?