ECT "Lordship 'Salvation'"-perverting the gospel of Christ
- Thread starter john w
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
So you just stop at Romans and ignore the remainder of Paul's epistles?
You're going have an extremely incomplete picture of what God is doing.
Do you also reject Hebrews 1:1?
I don't reject any scripture, but on your view, if I understand it correctly, you believe Romans 1:16 NASB was a past truth that was superceded.
Right Divider
Body part
Please explain how you think that there can be NEITHER Jew NOR Greek and Jew FIRST at the same time.
lifeisgood
New member
No Record of Paul's Water Baptism
There is no record of Paul ever being water baptized. There are only two passages in the entire New Testament that mention Paul being baptized. But which baptism did Paul receive?
Acts 9:17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
Later in Acts 22, Paul himself recounts these events to a crowd.
Acts 22:11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.12 "A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very moment I was able to see him. 14 "Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
Does "washing" indicate water baptism over baptism in the Holy Spirit? The answer is NO.
The Greek word for "wash" here, we find it occurs only one other place in the entire New Testament. The word for wash is "apolouo" and it is defined as follows.
628 apolouo {ap-ol-oo'-o}
from 575 and 3068; TDNT - 4:295,538; v
AV - wash away 1, wash 1; 2
1) to wash off or away
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
First Corinthians clearly states that we are washed by the Spirit. And in the phrase "by the Spirit," the Greek word for "by" is "en." It is defined as follows.
1722 en {en}
a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 and 1537); TDNT - 2:537,233; prep
AV - in 1902, by 163, with 140, among 117, at 113, on 62, through 39, misc 264; 2800
1) in, by, with etc.
Compare the use of "en" in the following passages where it is also used with "the Spirit." Notice that all six of these occurrences are in the very verse where both John the Baptist and Jesus distinguish between the two baptisms.
Matthew 3:11 he shall baptize you with [1722] the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mark 1:8 he shall baptize you with [1722] the Holy Ghost.
Luke 3:16 he shall baptize you with [1722] the Holy Ghost and with fire:
John 1:33 he which baptizeth with [1722] the Holy Ghost.
Acts 1:5 but ye shall be baptized with [1722] the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by [1722] one Spirit are we all baptized [907] into one body...
All six of these passages exactly parallel I Corinthians 6:11 in the Greek. So, in reality, I Corinthians 6:11 directly states that we are "washed...with the Spirit of our God." It is unequivocally a reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And this is the only other occurrence of this Greek word for "wash" in the entire New Testament. So, we can only conclude based on the two items Ananias was sent to accomplish and the use of this Greek word "wash" that the baptism Paul received in Acts 9 was baptism in the Holy Spirit, NOT baptism with water.
The point of this short exercise is only to prove that we have no evidence that the apostles, the rest of the 120, Apollos, or Paul were ever baptized with water in the name of Jesus. These facts present a compelling case that baptism in water in Jesus' name was not considered necessary for salvation.
In the end, we have no choice but to conclude that baptism in the Holy Spirit is the essential baptism (Ephesians 4:4-6), the baptism which "now saves us" (1 Peter 3:21), because that is the manner in which we "receive the Holy Spirit" (John 7:38-39, Acts 10:44-48, 11:15-17.) The simple truth is that "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is the Biblical term for our receiving the Holy Spirit and therefore becoming reborn.
What Water Baptism IS NOT:
1. Water baptism is NOT the baptism by which we enter into Christ or enter into Christ’s death.
2. Water baptism is NOT the pure water which cleanses our bodies.
3. Water baptism is NOT the first fruit or act of repentance.
4. Water baptism is NOT the source of assurance of salvation.
What Water Baptism IS:
1. Water baptism IS an explanatory illustration or antitype.
2. Water baptism IS a public expression of repentance that has already occurred.
3. Water baptism IS a public expression of petitioning God for forgiveness.
====
Christ water baptism WAS TO anoint him as king, as high priest, and to wash him as the sacrifice for the sins of the world.
None of these factors are applicable to us. And the biblical reason for Christians to be water baptized (to express repentance and as a means for the forgiveness of sins) are NOT applicable to Christ. Therefore, we are NOT biblically or logically justified in making assumptions about Christ’s water baptism and general Christian practice.
It is a long article:
http://www.biblestudying.net/baptism6.html
Last edited:
I don't know which was written first and I accept both. It doesn't say that there is neither Jew nor Greek in the church. It is simply that the distinctions don't matter. This may go as far as saying you don't need to identify as either one. I don't know how you get out of this that Romans 1:16 NASB isn't true anymore.
Are you talking about in the church and not in the church?
The gospel is for unbelievers. Unbelievers are not in the church. The gospel is or was to the Jew first and also to the Greek. It is the power of God for salvation to the Jew and to the Greek.
Can we say that the Jews have first priority in having the gospel preached to or by, receiving and understanding the gospel, etc.... I believe it is possible. And no less possible now.
Otherwise we would be saying that those grafted back in are not Jews or were not Jews to begin with. See here the natural branches.
Romans 11:24 NASB - 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
Cross Reference
New member
Lots of reasons for why He can't.
Right Divider
Body part
You are schizophrenic. I also accept both, but NOT at the same time. Two mutually exclusive things CANNOT BOTH be true at the SAME TIME and in the SAME WAY.
Which church? The body of Christ is made up of NEITHER Jew NOR Greek.... so HOW can the Jew come first?
Which gospel? The gospel of the kingdom was most definitely to the Jew first, but the gospel of the grace of God is to ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION.
So YOU think that the Jews has an advantage with God TODAY? You have not read the Bible Jacob.
You missed it AGAIN. TODAY there is NO need to be grafted into Israel as Israel is FALLEN.
TODAY, God gives His grace to ALL that will come to Him in faith of the FINISHED work of Jesus Christ on the CROSS!
You have come to some wrong conclusions. You also think I haven't read the Bible. For some reason you are calling me scizophrenic. What is your reason? Do you mean it to mean you think of me as less of a person, or are you somehow thinking this will cause spiritual growth in me?
The church is made up of Jew and Gentile. But I am telling you the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe, to the Jew first but also to the Greek. This has nothing to do with holding two mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time. These verses of scripture do not mean the same thing.
Have you heard the gospel preached before? Do you understand what it is?
It is not that Gentiles are in the new covenant while Israel is not. The new covenant came, and the first believers were Jews, meaning people of Israel. It was later that Gentiles were grafted in. I agree a partial hardening to Israel took place, but this does not mean God's promise that the new covenant would come to the house of Israel and the house of Judah was in any way put on hold or delayed. It DID NOT come to Gentiles first.
Right Divider
Body part
1) If I have "come to some wrong conclusions", please explain why. Everyone says stuff like that without providing even the slightest shred of proof; as if their opinion is the final authority.
2) I call you schizophrenic because you claim to believe TWO contradictory things at the SAME time.
3) No
4) No
So, again, you claim that you believe ALL of the Bible and yet you continue to reject Galatians 3:28
You are such a proud Jew, thinking that God still puts the Jew first at this time while Israel is fallen.
I have; have you?
Where did you get this incorrect idea?
Jesus died so that the new covenant could come, but it's not here yet. If it was ALL of Israel we be following the Lord Jesus Christ.
Gentiles have ALWAYS been allowed to join with Israel, if they would keep the Passover, circumcise their males, etc. etc.
Did you not know this?
I never said that the NC came to Gentiles first and I have NO idea where you got that crazy idea. God INDEED put the NC "on hold".
Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
I guess that this is another scripture that you will say that I don't understand. But it could NOT be more CLEAR.
But God will RESTORE Israel in His own time. Paul tells us of this also in the following verses that come IMMEDIATELY have he speaks of salvation to the Gentiles THROUGH Israel's fall.
Rom 11:12-15 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:12) Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (11:13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (11:14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. (11:15) For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?
Salvation came to Israel and the Jewish people, and then salvation came to the Gentiles.
I was not born a Jew. I am circumcised. I believe the gospel.
It would be silly to say there are no males in the church. I am a male and I am in the church that Jesus established.
I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus spoke of the new covenant but that the new covenant did not come yet.
As for your claim that the new covenant was put on hold you are using a verse about salvation coming to the Gentiles. This does not mean it was not with the Jews first. Salvation going beyond Israel and the Jews, to the Gentiles, does not mean salvation did not first come to Israel. But not all Israel was yet saved. This does not mean anything was put on hold. It simply means that some rejected and salvation came to the Gentiles (in different ways at different times but the same gospel and the same Spirit of God). Nothing happened that God did not already know about. That is my position. But it is still on the person to respond to the gospel, with everything being according to God's plan including the salvation each person receives when they believe the gospel that is proclaimed to them in truth. All the credit goes to God. Salvation to more people does not mean Israel put on hold. There was a partial hardening to Israel and then the Gentiles were where God went or was working. Nothing about people of Israel or Jews not believing, if you are only talking about the church. Some of Israel had believed. Then Gentiles believed as well.
Cross Reference
New member
Read carefully before replying: Do you believe the gospel of Jesus Christ needs to be preached to an already righteous man? By righteous I mean one who does good by precepts in his life established there by faith in a God who he believes sees and rewards for doing good to others?
lifeisgood
New member
I know; however, most don't.
There is only one God, so if this is what you mean, yes... because you have not said an already righteous man has salvation and the righteousness of Christ. A man cannot depend upon his own righteousness to save him. Salvation is not about being righteous, but about being rescued from sin. See Romans 3:23 NASB. Jesus is the only person who ever lived who was truly righteous, having never sinned.
Do you believe those who are saved are now righteous because they are saved? Is that what you mean?
Right Divider
Body part
The salvation that came to Gentiles THROUGH the FALL of Israel is NOT the same as the salvation that came to Israel BEFORE their fall.
Which gospel?
So, AGAIN, you don't believe this scripture? Gal. 3:28?
AGAIN, according to the Bible.... when the NC is in place nobody will be teaching "KNOW THE LORD, for they SHALL ALL KNOW ME". Jer 31:34
Is this yet another scripture that you reject?
The gospel of the grace of God was not known until God revealed it to Paul for us all. That is the gospel for TODAY during THIS time when Israel is FALLEN. When God ends this time of His long-suffering, He will RESTORE Israel and will deal as He did in the PAST (i.e., before be began dispensing His grace FREELY).
You clearly want no part of understanding the scripture rightly divided.
What do you mean by asking which gospel? Did you not already say there is no difference between Jew and Greek?
The question you have not answered is, "who did the gospel come to first?".
I believe all of scripture. I try not to make judgments about what I don't understand. I understand you believe the new covenant has not come yet.
Acts 3:19 NASB - 19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
Right Divider
Body part
So you one of those that cannot tell the difference between things that are different?
The gospel of the kingdom is NOT the same as the gospel of the grace of God.
The reason that I understand it is because the scripture is clear about what it will be like when it does come.
What is the "times of refreshing" and how will you know it when you see it?
Cross Reference
New member
Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
What "salvation"?
What "salvation"?
Cross Reference
New member
Without Pentecost in your life you won't 'see' it to know it, to enjoy it.
No - YOU think YOU understand the NC DID come.
If it DID we would NOT be having these debates. WHEN it does, ALL WILL KNOW IT.
YOUR problem is NOT with RD's assertions, it IS with YOUR comprehension.
Fool - if it DID come - we would NOT be having these debates.
Fool - that YOU HAVE TO post "I don't understand what you mean by that" WOULD show ANYONE with COMMON sense that THEY THEMSELVES are proving HOW clueless they are.
IF IT CAME - YOU - would NOT be posting "I don't understand..."
Turn the light on already, fool.