quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird
You don't have to be condescending.

Please don't rattle off a list of verses. In case you didn't hear it before, it's the same canned speech I get all of the time. Rattling off a list of verses or verse references doesn't tell me you understand them. It only demonstrates that you can memorize verses.

quote:

And No it is not a list that is just for reciting.

They are references to specific biblical passages were those ideas are explicitly taught.

Been there, done that. What I don't get is someone to discuss each specific scripture and their contexts. (Except Great Divide is making a valiant effort even now.) Normally, I wind up chasing one proof text after another. It doesn't matter that I can refute them in context. They are recited to me again and again. Generally, the person doesn't settle down on a scriptural analysis because they cannot analyze them. They can only recite. I have tried to tell you that before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

Why is forgiveness of sins associated with baptismal scriptures?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

Why is forgiveness of sins associated with baptismal scriptures?

Do you mean Acts 2:38? You and I had a couple of exchanges or more back on page 42 where we came to an impasse regarding whether or not the term "forgiveness of sins" referred to all sins in general or the specific sin of blood guilt upon the nation of Israel. I was addressing context. I don't remember you doing so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
I believe you have a point, generally speaking. I don't think faith and baptism are used interchangeably in a general sense. However, I believe Paul uses them interchangeably in this specific Scripture, not to agree with the lexicons, but to make the point that the Gentiles got to be sons of God through faith in Christ and they put on Christ when they were baptized. I don't think Paul is too concerned about correct lexical usage of the terms here.

So Paul breaks the rules of language? Surely you cannot be serious. I don't think Paul uses faith and baptism interchangeably at all. I don't see a dimes worth of difference between that position and eisegesis. Basically, it allows you to believe something in spite of any illogic to it.

quote:

Let's start with this. "Put on" in Gal. 3:27 is the Greek word enduo, Strong's number 1746, if you want to look it up. The word is used some 28 times in the NT, several times with relationship to clothing. Only one other time is does it have the direct object "Christ." That would be in Romans 13:14, where already baptized, saved Christians are told to "put on Christ." But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. (NASB) In that context, it seems to be related to some sort of spiritual discipline, in commitment and self denial. There it does not mean the same thing as to get saved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
What rule of language exactly would Paul have broken in order to use "faith" and "baptism" interchangeably here? Basically what Paul says in these verses is that the Gentile Christians are children of God by faith, a statement supported by the fact that they were baptized. I really don't see any violation of the rules of language.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

Some words are synonyms with other words. But baptism and faith are not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
What rule of language exactly would Paul have broken in order to use "faith" and "baptism" interchangeably here? Basically what Paul says in these verses is that the Gentile Christians are children of God by faith, a statement supported by the fact that they were baptized. I really don't see any violation of the rules of language.

Okay. I understand that we don't have a list of rules that we have to read and understand before we can begin to speak as childre. But it is understood that we don't go making our very own definitions to words entirely out from ordinary conventions. (Yes, occasionally people coin new words but that is a different thing entirely.) We know what baptism is and we know what faith is. Some words are synonyms with other words. But baptism and faith are not.

But if you are saying that baptism is the acknowlegement that Gentiles (as well as Jews) are children of God by faith also, then we are in agreement. Hmmm. Your words have triggered a line of thinking that I did not see before. It doesn't help your position but it helps establish a little more context.

This section (where verses 26-27)...

GD,
I have to break off now because I have to go to work. I am preseving my work here because I don't want to lose it. This is a work in process. Hold that thought...

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46

That's right! Baptism and faith are not synonyms. I didn't mean to say that Paul was using them synonymously. He was using them interchangeably, to describe the same event in these believers' lives -- their conversion. They were all sons of God through faith and they had all been baptized clothing themselves with Christ. Two non-synonymous ways of saying that they had become members of the family of God.

quote:

"No temporal gap was assumed between these two components of the conversion experience. The possibility that one could have faith but not be baptized was not even perceived as an option by Paul. In this passage Paul neither exalts faith at the expense of baptism nor baptism at the expense of faith. They are integrally related and each assumes the other." (Robert H. Stein)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

That is the context of Galatians 3 and Ephesian 2.

When in Ephesians Paul says you are not saved by works he is referring to works of the law of Moses not "anything you do."

quote:

Unfortunately the context is not referring to only blood guilt of Israel.

Acts 2:39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

It is for everyone God calls!

God calls on Gentiles as well.

quote:

Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus includes Gentiles when saying baptize all nations.

You view does not hold up biblically and I am always addressing context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

That is the context of Galatians 3 and Ephesian 2.

When in Ephesians Paul says you are not saved by works he is referring to works of the law of Moses not "anything you do."

I can see how you argue that in Galatians. But I don't see how you get that from Ephesians. Paul's view of works covered the gamut of law works and non-law works.

quote:

If you consider, for example that Abraham is used as an example of one who was justified by faith, any works he had could not have included law works because the law had not been instituted.

quote:

The "promise" to which Peter was referring was the promise of the HS, not the guilt. You are reading into the passage.

quote:

Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus includes Gentiles when saying baptize all nations.

You view does not hold up biblically and I am always addressing context.

quote:


I'm sure you think you are always addressing context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

No. Clothing oneself with Christ is not conversion. I presented my objection in post #1096. I said: Let's start with this. "Put on" in Gal. 3:27 is the Greek word enduo, Strong's number 1746, if you want to look it up. The word is used some 28 times in the NT, several times with relationship to clothing. Only one other time is does it have the direct object "Christ." That would be in Romans 13:14, where already baptized, saved Christians are told to "put on Christ." But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. (NASB) In that context, it seems to be related to some sort of spiritual discipline, in commitment and self denial. There it does not mean the same thing as to get saved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

It would not surprise me to hear that many in the early church viewed it that way. However, to say that Paul could not perceive faith without baptism is not correct. People who believe generally were baptized, but that does not make baptism part of salvation.

quote:

ORIGINAL jjbird,
Read Ephesians 2 the context is clearly the law of Moses......speaking about circumcision. Paul does cover other works I agree but the context of Ephesians 2 is self-explanatory.....works of the law of Moses.

quote:

I am sure you think you are as well. You obviously missed the context of Ephesians 2!

quote:

quote:

If you consider, for example that Abraham is used as an example of one who was justified by faith, any works he had could not have included law works because the law had not been instituted.

True BUT Abraham did faithfully obey God's word. Even before the declaration of justification in Gen 15. When Abram is introduced us in the bible he is already a faithful follower of God.

quote:

quote:

The "promise" to which Peter was referring was the promise of the HS, not the guilt. You are reading into the passage.

Yes Peter was promising the Holy Spirit and also forgiveness of sins for them and all generations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46

I agree that the figure of speech "clothed with Christ" or "put on Christ" may not always refer to conversion, but it appears to in Galatians 3:27. The reason I say that is because baptism is so closely linked with faith in this passage and faith does have to do with conversion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46

I agree that the figure of speech "clothed with Christ" or "put on Christ" may not always refer to conversion, but it appears to in Galatians 3:27. The reason I say that is because baptism is so closely linked with faith in this passage and faith does have to do with conversion.

There are only two samples of the use of enduo where Christ is the object of the verb. So the words "may not always" is only an acknowledgement that the term does not have the inherent meaning of conversion. If it is not inherent, then the context cannot force it to mean something it doesn't have in and of itself.

When you say "closely linked with faith," you are doing so merely because of proximity and not other reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL jjbird,
Read Ephesians 2 the context is clearly the law of Moses......speaking about circumcision. Paul does cover other works I agree but the context of Ephesians 2 is self-explanatory.....works of the law of Moses.

quote:

I am sure you think you are as well. You obviously missed the context of Ephesians 2!

I didn't miss it in Ephesians. I just don't think your conclusion is justified. Paul does not confine his use of works to law-works merely because of the mention of circumcision.

Notice verse 10. "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works..." Created for law-works?

quote:

quote:

If you consider, for example that Abraham is used as an example of one who was justified by faith, any works he had could not have included law works because the law had not been instituted.

True BUT Abraham did faithfully obey God's word. Even before the declaration of justification in Gen 15. When Abram is introduced us in the bible he is already a faithful follower of God.

quote:

quote:

The "promise" to which Peter was referring was the promise of the HS, not the guilt. You are reading into the passage.

Yes Peter was promising the Holy Spirit and also forgiveness of sins for them and all generations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: greatdivide46


The verse says For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. The imagery seems pretty vivid to me. Christ is compared with a garment that we put on and begin to wear when we are baptized. Doesn't that represent conversion? Maybe not. It could be that the main point that Paul wants to get across is union with Christ in and of itself. When we are clothed with Christ, we are identified with Him.

quote:

So, you're right. Paul is not talking primarily about conversion here. He's talking about union with Christ. Nevertheless, union with Christ is not possible without conversion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

quote:

Notice verse 10. "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works..." Created for law-works?

This is exactly what I mean by how the context defines the word. Because individual words have several meanings especially in Greek.

quote:

I agree with you concerning verse 10. I never said it is an absolute rule that Paul is always talking about works of the the law however most the time that is the case because that was the big issue in the early church between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

quote:

quote:

I have no idea what your point is save that you disagree with me.

God's law is his word. When he commanded Abraham to do something it was law. Not the law of Moses since we both know that came much later however it was still God's law because God commanded it and Abraham obeyed faithfully.

quote:

quote:

Yes Peter was promising the Holy Spirit and also forgiveness of sins for them and all generations.

No.
How do you come to your conclusion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

quote:

Notice verse 10. "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works..." Created for law-works?

This is exactly what I mean by how the context defines the word. Because individual words have several meanings especially in Greek.

I agree that context determines the meaning of a word. However, what you said was that the context determines the tense of a word. That's not the same thing.

quote:

I agree with you concerning verse 10. I never said it is an absolute rule that Paul is always talking about works of the the law however most the time that is the case because that was the big issue in the early church between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

quote:

quote:

I have no idea what your point is save that you disagree with me.

God's law is his word. When he commanded Abraham to do something it was law. Not the law of Moses since we both know that came much later however it was still God's law because God commanded it and Abraham obeyed faithfully.

quote:

Abraham's circumcision predates the law. And I agree that circumcision was later incorporated into the Mosaic system. But Paul broadens his usage of the term "works" to both law and non-law usage.

quote:

The fact that God commanded it doesn't make it Mosaic law.

quote:

It merely makes Abraham's obedience fall into the general category of works---works that did not justify. In any event, look at Romans 4:2 "For if Abraham was justified by works...[then it was] not before God."

quote:

Yes Peter was promising the Holy Spirit and also forgiveness of sins for them and all generations.

quote:


Note the various phrases Peter uses:
1) "This is that..." (verse 16) The Holy Spirit.
2) "I will pour out my Spirit..." (verse 17) The Holy Spirit.
3) "He poured out this which you see and hear..." (verse 33) Still the HS.
4) Verse 38, "you shall receive the HS"
5) "For the promise (the HS) is to you and to your children..."
6) I see no statement indicating "salvation is the promise."

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

That is a huge stretch leaving out forgiveness of sins as part of the promise and only leaving the Holy Spirit.

quote:

Forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit are both given when we are baptized.

quote:

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Forgiveness of sins is included always.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

That is a huge stretch leaving out forgiveness of sins as part of the promise and only leaving the Holy Spirit.

I am not saying there is no forgiveness in the section. I am saying that the promise is the HS. It is not a stretch at all. It is probably a perspective you haven't considered before. I have already pointed out that one of the central themes of Peter's sermon is the HS.

quote:

Forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit are both given when we are baptized.

quote:

Isn't that what is currently under debate here?

quote:

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Forgiveness of sins is included always.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

quote:

Isn't that what is currently under debate here?

Yes and it is explicitly stated by Peter that baptism is unto forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Don't you agree that is what Peter says?

quote:

quote:

So are you done with Acts 2:38? Or, are we going to chase back and forth between various proof texts?

I find it wise to allow the Bible to interpret itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjbird

quote:

Isn't that what is currently under debate here?

Yes and it is explicitly stated by Peter that baptism is unto forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Don't you agree that is what Peter says?

I guess it depends on what you think "unto" means. I think it means "with respect to."

quote:

quote:

So are you done with Acts 2:38? Or, are we going to chase back and forth between various proof texts?

I find it wise to allow the Bible to interpret itself.

quote:


Indeed. I also use the Bible to interpret the Bible. However, I think we disagree on certain methods. When you leap across contexts like that, that is the sort of "interpreting" that I object. "Verse x" = "conclusion z" because "verse y" says the same thing. IOW, "verse x" cannot stand up to scrutiny on its own. It cannot be interpreted in its own context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

I know, at first glance, that it is how people want to interpret the verse. Just to give you some perspective, this is another example of our old friend "eis" to which I alluded to earlier. You are suggesting, apparently that "eis" is used in the locative sense. The NT never, never uses the word "eis" in that manner. When someone is submerged with water or saturated with water, another preposition is used. Let's take Matt. 3:11 which I try to quote often enough to get the message across. Apparently, people tend to miss it.