water baptism in Jesus' Name.

DJT_47 · Jun 4, 2023

The_Watchers_2017 said:

I guess Jesus was one of the "idiots", too eh?

Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Cameron143 · Jun 4, 2023

Lamar said:

The best way to tell someone is actually a Christian is that you experience Christ living through them. They are being conformed to the image of Christ and the fruit of the Spirit is exercised in and through them.
Here we are talking about salvation. And the evidence of the work of God in giving hearing and the circumcision of their pricked hearts is a godly sorrow that works repentance and obedience. The activity of verse 37 precedes 38 and 39.

The_Watchers_2017 · Jun 4, 2023

DJT_47 said:

Everyone knows Mark Chapter 16, after Verse 9, was ADDED in later and not part of the original Writing.
Same with Matthew 28. They just added the Baptism parts after people were Baptizing in the Book of Acts.

mailmandan · Jun 5, 2023

Lamar said:

Your so called clear meaning of Acts 22:16 is not in harmony with salvation through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" as I already thoroughly explained to you in post #1,230. Period. You just don't have eyes to see or ears to hear because you don't believe the gospel. Prior to my conversion several years ago while still attending the Roman Catholic church, I did not have eyes to see or ears to hear either because I did not believe the gospel and I was also trusting in water baptism for salvation instead of in Christ alone then, just as you are now. Been there, done that, but now I believe the gospel. Praise God! When will you believe? (Acts 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4)

Roman Catholics would agree with your argument in regards to Acts 22:16 here and they would also make your same "not in harmony with faith alone" argument in regards to John 6:54-56 as well. Roman Catholics reject salvation through faith in Christ alone (just as you do) for salvation through faith (their version of faith) + works instead. ALL false religions and cults "add" works to salvation through faith and reject salvation through faith in Christ alone. Your beliefs appear to be fixed and your conscience seared, but with God all things are possible.

I often hear water-salvationists make your same argument about grammar in regards to their pet verse, Acts 2:38. Let's see what Greek grammarian scholars think about it.

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "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."

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/acts/acts-2-38.html

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA238.pdf

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

https://christiandefense.org/general/3871/

mailmandan · Jun 5, 2023

DJT_47 said:

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism.

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

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.

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who BELIEVES, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

Wansvic · Jun 5, 2023

mailmandan said:

Your removal of the words THROUGH HIS NAME implies the scripture says something it does not say. Acts 10:43 says it is THROUGH JESUS NAME that those who believe in Him receive remission of sin. Again, "Through His Name." "To him give all the prophets witness, that THROUGH HIS NAME whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. " The Gentile conversion account concludes with Peter commanding the group be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48)

As for Acts 3:19, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord," parallels Peter's initial command given in Acts 2:38. Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of the Jesus Christ for remission of sins, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

The NT conversion experience includes, repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the Holy Ghost as well.

mailmandan · Jun 6, 2023

Wansvic said:

I am fully aware that the entire verse reads - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:43) I was responding to your statement in which you connected baptism with receiving remission of sins in your pet verse Acts 2:38 and I simply isolated ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins in Acts 10:43 to demonstrate that's where remission of sins is received, and it's not received through baptism. (Acts 10:43-47)

Water baptism "follows" the conversion account of these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47, as I already explained in post #1.232. Again, these Gentiles had already believed in Him, received remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE receiving water baptism. The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues (which is a spiritual gift that is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid these Gentiles from being baptized because of their unacceptance of the Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. (Romans 8:9; 1 John 4:13)

The phrase, “in Jesus' name,” is not a reference to a salvation baptismal formula but a reference to authority. Therefore, you are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done using the specific words, "In Jesus name" as a salvation formula. Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19). The proper way to baptize in Jesus’ name (by the authority of Jesus) is to say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Why do you reject the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19? See John 12:48.

Must baptism be done "in Jesus' name"? | carm.org

It is worth mentioning that there are non-Christian cults who will baptize people "in Jesus’ name" instead of "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20. The reason they do this is that they believe that the proper baptismal formula is "in Jesus’ name" and will reference verses like Acts 19:5 above for their support. However, they mistakenly think that baptizing in Jesus’ name is a salvation formula for baptism. They are incorrect. Instead, it is a designation of the authority to baptize in the name of Jesus according to what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20.

In Jesus' name: What does the phrase mean? | carm.org

It's not an exact parallel because Peter does not mention baptism in Acts 3:19. As I already explained to you in post #1232, 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.

The NT conversion experience includes, repentance, believes in Him/faith in Christ, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism in Jesus' name/by the authority of Jesus in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit "follows" and signifies conversion. (Matthew 28:19,20; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-48; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18).

Wansvic · Jun 6, 2023

mailmandan said:

I am fully aware that the entire verse reads - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:43) I was responding to your statement in which you connected baptism with receiving remission of sins in your pet verse Acts 2:38 and I simply isolated ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins in Acts 10:43 to demonstrate that's where remission of sins is received, and it's not received through baptism. (Acts 10:43-47)

Water baptism "follows" the conversion account of these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47, as I already explained in post #1.232. Again, these Gentiles had already believed in Him, received remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE receiving water baptism. The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues (which is a spiritual gift that is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid these Gentiles from being baptized because of their unacceptance of the Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. (Romans 8:9; 1 John 4:13)

The phrase, “in Jesus' name,” is not a reference to a salvation baptismal formula but a reference to authority. Therefore, you are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done using the specific words, "In Jesus name" as a salvation formula. Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19). The proper way to baptize in Jesus’ name (by the authority of Jesus) is to say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Why do you reject the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19? See John 12:48.

Must baptism be done "in Jesus' name"? | carm.org

It is worth mentioning that there are non-Christian cults who will baptize people "in Jesus’ name" instead of "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20. The reason they do this is that they believe that the proper baptismal formula is "in Jesus’ name" and will reference verses like Acts 19:5 above for their support. However, they mistakenly think that baptizing in Jesus’ name is a salvation formula for baptism. They are incorrect. Instead, it is a designation of the authority to baptize in the name of Jesus according to what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20.

In Jesus' name: What does the phrase mean? | carm.org

It's not an exact parallel because Peter does not mention baptism in Acts 3:19. As I already explained to you in post #1232, 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.

The NT conversion experience includes, repentance, believes in Him/faith in Christ, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism in Jesus' name/by the authority of Jesus in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit "follows" and signifies conversion. (Matthew 28:19,20; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-48; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18).

If what you believe was true. Peter would not have given the command to repent, etc...to those who questioned what was required of them AFTER they believed in Jesus.

mailmandan · Jun 6, 2023

Wansvic said:

See post #633.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ism-in-jesus-name.211048/page-32#post-5084235

Wansvic · Jun 6, 2023

mailmandan said:

Your so called clear meaning of Acts 22:16 is not in harmony with salvation through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" as I already thoroughly explained to you in post #1,230. Period. You just don't have eyes to see or ears to hear because you don't believe the gospel. Prior to my conversion several years ago while still attending the Roman Catholic church, I did not have eyes to see or ears to hear either because I did not believe the gospel and I was also trusting in water baptism for salvation instead of in Christ alone then, just as you are now. Been there, done that, but now I believe the gospel. Praise God! When will you believe? (Acts 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4)

Roman Catholics would agree with your argument in regards to Acts 22:16 here and they would also make your same "not in harmony with faith alone" argument in regards to John 6:54-56 as well. Roman Catholics reject salvation through faith in Christ alone (just as you do) for salvation through faith (their version of faith) + works instead. ALL false religions and cults "add" works to salvation through faith and reject salvation through faith in Christ alone. Your beliefs appear to be fixed and your conscience seared, but with God all things are possible.

I often hear water-salvationists make your same argument about grammar in regards to their pet verse, Acts 2:38. Let's see what Greek grammarian scholars think about it.

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "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."

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/acts/acts-2-38.html

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA238.pdf

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

https://christiandefense.org/general/3871/

You may want to focus more on what the Bible actually reveals instead of relying on the junk mail of "scholars."

mailmandan · Jun 6, 2023

Wansvic said:

I will listen to Christian scholars who properly harmonize scripture with scripture over folks who promote a "works based" false gospel.

There is a difference between believing "mental assent" that Jesus is the Messiah and you are guilty of crucifying Him and believing in Jesus unto salvation/repentance unto life.

mailmandan · Jun 6, 2023

Wansvic said:

Also see post #530 from this thread. I covered this with you before.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...eaking-in-tongues.185155/page-27#post-3936214

DJT_47 · Jun 6, 2023

heartwashed said:

A continuation of your reply should be 'except be faithful unto death'.

WayneKCobb · Jun 8, 2023

JBTN said:

Hi JTBN,

Thank you very much for your taking the time to look up the word in Thayer's. Most people do not take the time. There is more than one definition for this Greek word. I found it in 32 places in the New Testament. It certainly can mean what you wrote above from Thayer's and I do think in this instance that is exactly what it means. Just for your information, though, this same Greek word is used in a number of places like the following: Acts 10:18 and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there.

But even more than this, even though Acts 2:21 says, "AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED" it does not include believing. But we find in Romans 10 this set of verses:
Romans 10:12-14 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

We see here that there is a qualification in "calling on the name of the Lord" and that is one must believe. If there is no faith there, "calling on the name of the Lord" is useless.

What do you think?

God bless you,
Wayne

WayneKCobb · Jun 8, 2023

mailmandan said:

A distinction without a difference. "Works of righteousness" are works done in righteousness so they are works of faith/works produced out of faith. How many genuine works of righteousness (works done in righteousness) do non-Christians produce? Works of righteousness cannot be produced from the unrighteous. In Acts 10:35, we read - But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. This is 'descriptive' of Christian (who has been saved through faith) and not a prerequisite to become saved. (Titus 3:5)

Roman Catholics and other works-salvationists also make the same argument that you made about not saved by "these" works, but saved by "those" works when the Bible NOWHERE says we are saved by works of any kind. In 1 Thessalonians 1:3, notice the words "work of" faith, "labor of" love and "patience of" hope in 1 Thessalonians 1:3. These are the practical outworking of the Thessalonians' conversion. The "work" the Thessalonians do is a result or consequence of their faith. So too their "labor" flows from love and their "endurance" comes from hope. Work "of" faith does not mean that faith in essence is the work accomplished or that they were saved based on those works accomplished. Their work is a result or consequence "of" their faith. The work done is "of" faith or done "out of" faith. Faith was already established at conversion and then the work followed as a result or consequence "of" their faith.

Yet we still submit to being water baptized which still makes it a work on our part.

Meddle or middle? Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

Just because we don't baptize ourselves does not mean that submitting to being water baptized isn't a work. So why didn't Paul simply say in Ephesians 2:8 that we are saved through faith and water baptism? He simply said faith and faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism.

Water baptism is the picture and not the reality of being raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Don't leave out who raised Him from the dead. We place our faith in the risen Savior (working of God) and not in water baptism.

Hello Mailmandan,

I appreciate the time you took to respond and, it seems to me, that our whole difference really lies in the definition of faith. May I ask you a few questions concerning Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What is hope?
When does one get hope?
How do you know if a person has hope?
What is faith?
Is faith the same thing as hope?
if faith is different than hope, how is it different?
How do you know if a person has faith?

Thank you,
Wayne

mailmandan · Jun 8, 2023

WayneKCobb said:

Unlike the english word "hope," the N.T. word contains no uncertainty; it speaks of something that is certain. - Strong's #1680 elpís (from elpō, "to anticipate, welcome") – properly, expectation of what is sure (certain); hope.

If we have saving faith in Christ, then we have this hope. Faith is the substance of things hoped for.. (Hebrews 11:1) So that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:7)

So faith is the substance or assurance of things hoped for, the evidence or conviction of things not seen. The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

Faith and hope are distinct yet related. There is a difference between faith and hope, “Now these three remain: faith, hope and love.." Faith and hope are related concepts as we see in Hebrews 11:1 - “Faith is confidence in what we hope for.” Biblical hope is built on faith. Hope is the earnest anticipation that comes with believing something good. Hope is a confident expectation that naturally stems from faith. Hope involves something that is yet unseen: “Hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?” (Romans 8:24) The return of Jesus is our “blessed hope.” (Titus 2:13)

Faith and hope are complementary, and faith is grounded in the reality of the past and hope is looking to the reality of the future. Without faith, there is no hope, and without hope there is no true faith. You know if a person has faith because they are trusting in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation and not in works. (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9)

JBTN · Jun 8, 2023

WayneKCobb said:

Hi Wayne

This is what comes to mind.

““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7‬:‭21‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/mat.7.21.ESV

What does it mean to do his will?

“Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭3‬:‭21‬-‭24‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/1jn.3.23-24.ESV

WayneKCobb · Jun 15, 2023

mailmandan said:

Mailmandan,

Thank you for all the work you did in explaining your understanding of hope and faith. If I may, I would like to offer a few other thoughts concerning hope and faith.

Hope comes when you gain knowledge of something. You trust the knowledge you have received, whether the knowledge is true or false. This is easily seen in all the false religions we find in this world. in the King James Version it says in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. How is faith substance and evidence?

Luke 5:17-20 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. 18 And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. 19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring Him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. 20 And when He saw their faith, He said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee."

So we see that faith can be seen whereas, hope cannot be seen. Another example is Peter when he saw Jesus walking on the water.

Matthew 14:28-29 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

When Jesus said to Peter, "Come", Peter then had hope. Peter demonstrated his hope when Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water.

Both hope and faith have trust in the knowledge they have received. But faith has works. These works are not "works of righeousness" Titus 3:5, but are works of faith, 1 Thess. 1:3 and 2 Thess. 1:11. These works of faith can be seen. James 2:14-26 sums up three levels of faith: First, faith without works is dead". Second, Abraham received a "perfected faith" when he when to offer up Isaac on the altar. Thirdly, a "pefected fatih" implies that there is a "unperfected faith". This is a good faith that is willing to obey any command that God gives to us and when that moment of obedience comes upon us, we obey just like Abraham did when God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac.

So hope is trust in the knowledge you have received and faith is also the same and is coupled with works of faith which can be seen.

So whenever we see the word faith or believe (the come from the same Greek word), we automatically think that it includes works for faith without works is dead.

Does this make sense?

Thanks,
Wayne

WayneKCobb · Jun 15, 2023

JBTN said:

Hello again JBTN,

Thank you so much for your answer. When I first became a Christian, the preacher told me that if I wanted to know "accurately" the truth, there were seven rules that help us to do that. They are:

1. We need to know who is speaking in the Bible: Is it God, fools, the devil, false prophets, the apostles, etc.

2. We need to know "to whom spoken to". Like, God told Noah to build the Ark, not anyone else.

3. When was it spoken: Before the Law was given or Under the Law or in the Christian age.

4. Context: The context would be the book of the Bible in which this particular subject was written as sometimes something is said, for instance in the first chapter and then a couple of chapters later it mentions something else. Unless you know what was said in the first chapter, you might completely misunderstand what it says a couple of chapters later.

5. Cultural: Sometimes the culture has a direct bearing on the subject you are studying.

6. Say it the way the Bible says it. Usually, translations are much better than paraphrases (thought translations). And usually, most translations convey the truth in the Bible.

7. The Sum of God's word is truth - Psalms 119:160. Many times the truth about a subject is contained in other chapters in a book or in other books of the Bible.

So, anyway, from the scriptures that you gave to me, it seems that both you and I understand there is more to the truth, many times than is contained in just one set of scriptures.

I think you already know where I stand on the subject of baptism. When I am asked what a person needs to do to be saved, I tell them to read the book of Acts, knowing that if they do, they will find out. In all the years I have been ministering, without exception, the next time we studied, they wanted to be baptized.

Also, why in all the conversion stories were the people baptized the same day they believed? What is the reason for that? Wht would you have done if you had been one of the nine cases in the book of Acts?

Thanks for listening!

Wayne

GRACE_ambassador · Jun 16, 2023

WayneKCobb said:

Precious friend Wayne , when I was a babe in Christ, I went to visit relatives to share
The Good News, and was introduced to a "salvation-by-water-baptism" preacher
(although I didn't know 'that' at the time), and he showed me these Scriptures, and,
I thought "well, they sounded good," and then, he 'pushed' me to do it immediately,
but I said I would wait until the next Sunday service. (I thought, at the time) I "was
so glad to be on the winning team."

However, years later, after maturing a little, (left 'reformed' because of 'infant'
baptism), I next "studied by mail," (same group different city), gave him my
( denominational ) "beautiful symbolic" interpretation of water, and then was asked:

"How come you baptists believe in TWO baptismS when God Says There Is Only ONE?"

Of course (more maturity needed?), I could not answer 'that' great question - just
kept on humbly studying Scripture, in order to find out.

Did God Honor that? I think so, because He Led me To His:

ONE Baptism

Needless to say, Confusion missing, and no longer a baptist with TWO baptisms
( 33 years later, still in God's Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided ). Amen.

Precious friend, thanks for listening...

water baptism in Jesus' Name.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Active member

Member

Member

Well-known member