Posted on 01/21/2005 6:34:28 AM PST by P-Marlowe
"We feel that Dr. A. T. Robertson's comments from earlier this century are very meaningful:"
"This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36)."
I'll refer you to A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration by James White for a more detailed analysis.
IMHO-
The belief by some groups of baptismal regeneration has been around for 20 centuries. It is held by the Roman Catholics, Mormons, Church of Christ and others. I'm confident you and I are not going to clear this up.
I understand completely.
I am very familiar with A.T. Robertson's comments on this issue. I will humbly submit that he, like you, are biased. If you will notice, he conveniently leaves out Matthew 26:28, which is the verse that contains the exact same Greek phrase as Acts 2:38. In the Matthew passage, Christ Himself says that His blood was shed for remission of sins. I doubt you would say that in that passage, Christ is saying that He shed his blood because of the remission of sins, would you? Then why do you want to translate Acts 2:38 in that manner, even though no reputable translation on the face of this earth has ever translated Acts 2:38 that way?
You still have not logically answered how you can translate the same phrase, not just the word eis, but the same entire phrase, two totally opposite ways.
Baptism and Acts 2:38 by Matt Slick
Baptismal Regeneration By Dustin Shramek
Most of these experts agree on the Greek construct. And at some point in time they can't all be bias-except perhaps to you who wish to further your interpretation. To say "no reputable translation on the face of this earth has ever translated Acts 2:38 that way" is, well wouldn't you say, an overstatement. If nothing else, the Greek documents agree which is what I base my references. At best all you can say for this verse is that it is questionable which is a pretty poor thing to hang an entire theological position on. Especially when there are other conflicting verses which never mentions baptism.
As far as Matt 26:28 goes, I will not hop around the scriptures. I've had too many people play that game with me before. You fail to make your point with me on how unregenerated people can want to be baptized and failed in explaining how people (not just Cornelius) can be filled with the Holy Spirit (our guarantee) prior to being baptized as so many different scriptures point out.
If you want to believe it is your baptism which saves you that is your business between God.
If so many "experts" agree that Acts 2:38 means "because of remission of sins", then show me ONE translation of the Bible that translates it that way. My guess is that you can't, which says a lot about your argument.
I don't believe I have a salvation based on works, I have a salvation based on Jesus giving His life on the Cross for the forgiveness of my sins, and my submission to His will.
To God be the Glory!
He doesn't!
Well, then why are some elect and some not, according to Calvinism?
"I will not hop around the scriptures"
That is a very telling statement. You would rather point to denominational "experts" for proof than deal with what Christ said in His Word. I am more than happy to "hop around the scriptures" all day long. That is the only true way to know what is right (2 Timothy 2:15).
If there was some confusion in the analogy, it was quickly corrected in the following post.
But, the point of the analogy was made very clear, that you had a gift made (that you did not earn) but had to approbiate it in order to use it.
Now, if you want to play little word games and show how clever you can be by not getting the point, move on, I do not have any more time to waste with you.
It is clear from your posts with others, that you think you are a very 'smart' guy who thinks he knows alot more then you really do.
I'm just going on EXACTLY what you told me in the beginning. You told me that the million dollars was in MY bank account. Now, you tell me that the million isn't in my account.
Ok, so then make the adjustment, the money is an account (lets say Swiss)
When you figure out exactly what it is that YOU believe, you be sure and get back to me. Ok!
It is.
***Now, that is quite amazing. You know its there-how?*** Well, I think that is self evidently obvious. You know that your debt has been paid because you don't get sent to debtors prison. This analogy isn't hard, ftd.
Fine, so your debt has been paid by a generous individual.
***You have to believe to get saved, believe in the Person and Work of the saviour.*** This is exactly the backward way that Arminians read such passages as John 10:26. In point of fact, people don't believe BECAUSE they are not sheep, exactly and explicitly as such passages as John 10:26 say.
Oh, is that right!
What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts.16)
Nothing like taking a passage out of context.
Salvation is through faith, and by faith not before it.(Rom.3:25, Rom.5:1, Eph.2:8-9)
As for Jn.10:27, Jesus never says they can't believe only that they won't.
Thus, because those Jews would not believe they were not Christ's sheep.
In fact,in vs 38, Christ again exhorts them to believe in Him.
There is nothing in John 6 or 10 that states that God regenerates before faith, or only the elect can believe.
Let's look at the modified analogy again: "Let us say that you owe a million dollars and that if you don't pay, you will be cast into debtors prison until the full debt is paid. Some man comes along and pays your debt. There is not any requirement for you to accept this gift; it was legally applied to your account for your benefit. All you must do is enjoy the gift. Now, that makes more sense than this bank job weirdness."
Nothing wrong with the analogy as it stands.
Someone stands in and pays your debt, but that only goes to one side of the problem, removal of sin.
You also need God's righteousness to enter into heaven (Jn.3:3-4, Matt.5)
So, the unbelievers debt has also been paid (Heb.2:9, 1Jn.2:2, Rom.5:15), yet they do not believe it and continue to try and work to pay it off.(it is too good to be true)
Or analogy does show the issue of grace, that someone else pays the debt, but that is all it shows.
It doesn't show that only a particular debtor debt has been paid (and the subject was unlimited vs limited atonement) or that the person who has had his debt paid accepts the fact that he is now legally debt free.
First off, I'll point out that in your silly analogy you did EXACTLY say that "I put a million dollars in your bank account." I correctly pointed out that if the million is in MY account, then there is nothing I need do further. Of course, realizing that you had talked yourself into a corner, you've tried to change your analogy. Well, I've modified it for you to make it Biblical so there is no need now for you to contradict yourself. Simply admit that you had it all wrong and embrace something better. Just look... Luke 7:41 "There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?" Now, the Lord Jesus used this analogy of a freely forgiven debt more than once. And, not once in any of the times did the Lord use the analogy was there an element of the debtor having to accept the gift of the payment in order for it to actually apply to him. It is just not to be found. IOW, you are just making up stuff which has no Biblical relevance. To be honest, it is in effect adding an unBiblical requirement to the gospel. Now, I'm sure you will note if you check The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew that the wicked servant actually begged his master to forgive him. Before you wrongfully think that this somehow helps you out, let me point out something for you. Boldly walking up to your Master and simply informing him that you freely accept his gift of forgiving your debt is tantamount to a blasphemy against the person of the Son. It is highly irreverent. The wicked servant actually got this part right: he BEGGED his master to forgive him. You see, first of all, our Master is under no obligation to forgive. To say that he is under obligation is to flat out declare that he actually owed something to man. And that is just plain blasphemy. Secondly, there is a big difference between begging for forgiveness and informing your master that you presumptuously accept his forgiveness. On both points, your Arminianism falls woefully short. This isn't hard, ftd.
What seems to be hard for you is staying on topic.
We were discussing Unlimited vs Limited Atonement, and that is what my analogy was dealing with.
You want to tap dance around and bring in another issue.
Now, faith is how we accept the gift.
No one is presumptious in anything, when we are told that is how we are to behave by God Himself.
The topic you raised was dealing with the Atonement, not salvation by faith vs regeneration.
When you can stay on topic longer then a single post, let me know.
That's a clear statement of your position.
Do you not see that you are adding to Christ's redemptive work by your own agreement to "submit to His will?" This submission is dependent on your good sense, piety and righteousness, not upon Christ's redemptive sacrifice alone.
I remember when that was first pointed out to me. It took another 50 times to finally be able to say "Oh, NOW I get it!" Salvation is either all of God, ordained by Him from before the foundation of the world according to His will alone, or men share in the decision of salvation through temporal means, i.e. agreement, submission, sacramental participation, financial support, intelligence, desires, yadayadayada...The closer to Rome, the more requirements in order to be saved.
Either/or. Monergistic/synergistic. God saved me/I help God save me.
I have Biblical support for my position.
Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will
of My Father in heaven."
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" -- Ephesians 2:8
Saved by grace through faith.
If Paul had wanted to say what you said, he would have written "Faith saves you."
He didn't. He said "Grace saves you." And God bestows His saving grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
That's why salvation IS NOT a work of man, since man has nothing to do with God's grace. Salvation is of the Lord alone.
The world turns on the understanding of a couple prepositions.
By our fruits are we known.
But our fruits have nothing to do with our salvation. Only God saves. He wrote the names of the elect in the Book of Life from before the foundation of the world. And none whom the Father has given the Son can be lost. All Scripture, Old and New Testaments, can be summed up in these short verses:
"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one." -- John 10: 25-30.
Christ came to gather the sheep. Thank you, God, that you and I are among them, through nothing in ourselves, but only through the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." -- Psalms 100:3
The sheep have always belonged to the Good Shepherd. And He loses not one of them.
It would seem so, and you can't seem to understand them.
Here is the Calvinist, A.T.Robinson, considered the foremost Greek scholar of his day,
For by grace (th gar cariti). Explanatory reason. "By the grace" already mentioned in verse Romans 5 and so with the article. Through faith (dia pistewß). This phrase he adds in repeating what he said in verse Romans 5 to make it plainer. "Grace" is God's part, "faith" ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine tauth, and so refers not to pistiß (feminine) or to cariß (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex umwn, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God's gift (dwron) and not the result of our work.
Did Paul ever say that we are saved by faith?
Yes, he did in Rom.5:1.
Through: by means of; by an agency of, noting instrumentality (sanctify them through thy truth (Jn.17)(American Dictionary of the English Language)
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=eph&chapter=002
Below is the JFB commentary.
The instrument or mean of salvation on the part of the person saved; Christ alone is the meritorious agent.
Calvin states, The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith;
Here is the Calvinist Gill,
through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; salvation is through faith, not as a cause or condition of salvation, or as what adds anything to the blessing itself; but it is the way, or means, or instrument, which God has appointed, for the receiving and enjoying it,
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=eph&chapter=002&verse=008&next=009&prev=007
Anymore questions on how through is being used?
Calvinists A.T. Robinson, Gill, and Calvin all say it is the instrument by which we are saved, not just a sign that we are saved
I'll refer you to #794 where I answered this question in detail.
Don't give me this bibber-babber. These are people from multiple denominations. They've showed you what the Greek said but, yeah, everyone is bias against your opinion.
Well if you're happy to hop around then hop on over to this verse:
Rom 10:17 "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."
You won't find anything about baptism on how we receive our faith and without faith it is impossible to please Him. But you'll probably ignore that just as you've ignored other examples in Acts.
Now, in terms of spiritual gifts, God can give whatever gift He chooses and there is no problem with 'fairness' since each gift is equal to every other in the Body in importance to the Body(1Cor.12)
Fine by me. Grace saves. Faith is the instrument God employs to bestow His grace. It's what we've been saying from day one.
Calvinists A.T. Robinson, Gill, and Calvin all say it is the instrument by which we are saved, not just a sign that we are saved
God could have given us a fortune cookie to tell us of His bestowal of grace, ftd, with the following verse inside...
"YOU ARE SAVED BY THE ATONING SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST WHO DIED IN YOUR STEAD. FALL TO YOUR KNEES AND THANK GOD ALMIGHTY
But the cookie doesn't save us; HIS GRACE SAVES US through faith in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
One day, God willing, you'll get the distinction. It's the difference between Geneva and Rome. Monergism/synergism.
I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]
II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein;[5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]
III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]
Faith is a gift from God as pointed out in the confession.
No, you did not say that faith was an instrument, you said it was a result of regeneration.
And as those theologians stated it is what man is required to do.
Calvinists A.T. Robinson, Gill, and Calvin all say it is the instrument by which we are saved, not just a sign that we are saved God could have given us a fortune cookie to tell us of His bestowal of grace, ftd, with the following verse inside... "YOU ARE SAVED BY THE ATONING SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST WHO DIED IN YOUR STEAD. FALL TO YOUR KNEES AND THANK GOD ALMIGHTY But the cookie doesn't save us; HIS GRACE SAVES US through faith in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
You have to believe what the message says before you are saved.
Faith cometh by hearing, not by regeneration. (Rom.10:17)
That means that faith is how we are saved and how we approbriate Grace.
One day, God willing, you'll get the distinction. It's the difference between Geneva and Rome. Monergism/synergism.
No, one day you will actually believe what the scripture says.
So, in your Christian walk, how is your faith?
Are you choosingto yield to God or rejecting God and sinning.
Or does God do the choosing there also, giving you the faith sometimes and allowing you to sin others?
Faith is how we walk with God, Faith is how we are saved by God.
Faith is how we please God.
And believing is what you choose to do or not do.
I expect that in a month you will be back proclaiming that faith is a sign that you have been regenerated and not an instrument to obtain that regeneration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.