May I ask...

[Derf]

Apparently it's because baptism means immersion "in the Greek."

(According to Derf's link.)

I don't disagree with that aspect of the word's usage, but my point was to show that baptisms occurred in the old testament, even using the Greek word root once it was translated into Greek.

 

[Idolater]

I don't disagree with that aspect of the word's usage, but my point was to show that baptisms occurred in the old testament, even using the Greek word root once it was translated into Greek.

OK. I had to conjecture, since you only posted the link without comment.

 

[Derf]

OK. I had to conjecture, since you only posted the link without comment.

But it was posted in response to @Hoping's post about baptism not being in the old testament. Context, context, context, they say.

 

[Idolater]

But it was posted in response to @Hoping's post about baptism not being in the old testament. Context, context, context, they say.

I think it turned out OK.

 

[way 2 go]

But faith is not alone. No able Christian should sit on the couch all day long "just" believing in Christ, asking others to provide for him.

No evangelist should just wait at home believing God has saved him and others, but should actually tell others of Christ and the resurrection.

No preacher should ascend the pulpit and forbear to speak.

just like to point out the unsaved have works
but all that is not of faith is sin

(Romans 14:23 [MKJV]) But, the one doubting, if he eats, he has been condemned, because it is not of faith; and all that is not of faith is sin.

And James quotes the same passage, showing that Abraham's faith was backed up by his deeds. When both Paul and James talk about works, why would you ignore all of James and some of Paul and preach "no works"?

The question is, "what is the result if what?"
The result of faith, in this context (both Paul and James) is salvation...and works!

Salvation is not the result of works, but works is the result of salvation, according to James and Paul.

by faith alone
James says no
(James 2:14 [MKJV]) My brothers, what profit is it if a man says he has faith and does not have works? Can faith save him?

Paul says yes
(Ephesians 2:8-10) [8] For by grace are all of you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10]

 

[Derf]

just like to point out the unsaved have works
but all that is not of faith is sin

(Romans 14:23 [MKJV]) But, the one doubting, if he eats, he has been condemned, because it is not of faith; and all that is not of faith is sin.

by faith alone
James says no
(James 2:14 [MKJV]) My brothers, what profit is it if a man says he has faith and does not have works? Can faith save him?

Paul says yes
(Ephesians 2:8-10) [8] For by grace are all of you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10]

Then you agree or disagree with James that some people are really and truly saved by a combination of faith and works?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then you agree or disagree with James that some people are really and truly saved by a combination of faith and works?

No.

Rather, at the time, there were TWO covenants in effect. One from Paul, his "dispensation of grace," and one from the Twelve, the "covenant of circumcision."

There is CURRENTLY only one covenant in effect, and that's Paul's dispensation of grace, where the covenant of circumcision will be brought back into effect at the end times, after the Rapture.

 

[Derf]

No.

Rather, at the time, there were TWO covenants in effect. One from Paul, his "dispensation of grace," and one from the Twelve, the "covenant of circumcision."

There is CURRENTLY only one covenant in effect, and that's Paul's dispensation of grace, where the covenant of circumcision will be brought back into effect at the end times, after the Rapture.

I appreciate your answer, but I'd like to see @way 2 go's answer.

In the meantime, you are agreeing with James that at least in the past, and at some future time, some people will be saved by their works along with faith, right?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I appreciate your answer, but I'd like to see @way 2 go's answer.

In the meantime, you are agreeing with James that at least in the past, and at some future time, some people will be saved by their works along with faith, right?

Correct, if by "in part" you are referring to those in the years after Christ's ascension and Paul's conversion, when the Twelve were still alive on the earth. That's the "endure to the end" bit. Literally, the end of the world. Endure, and your nation, Israel, will be saved.

 

[Derf]

Correct, if by "in part" you are referring to those in the years after Christ's ascension and Paul's conversion, when the Twelve were still alive on the earth. That's the "endure to the end" bit. Literally, the end of the world. Endure, and your nation, Israel, will be saved.

So Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for them? They needed, and will need, to add works to His death on the cross? Even though Peter (one following the kingdom gospel) said,
Acts 15:11 KJV — But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

And Paul said,
Romans 11:6 KJV — And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Are you saying that Peter disagreed with James?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for them? They needed, and will need, to add works to His death on the cross? Even though Peter (one following the kingdom gospel) said,
Acts 15:11 KJV — But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

You're confusing the salvation of Israel with being saved by grace.

First, note that the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) took place 14 years after Paul initially when to Jerusalem to see Peter (Galatians 1:18) and 17 years after Paul's conversion (which itself was about one year after Christ's ascension). Also note that Paul was able to explain his gospel to the leadership in Jerusalem, privately, before the council. 3 years, let alone 17 years, is plenty of time for Paul to have somewhat solidified his knowledge of what his dispensation means, and explaining things privately before they were discussed in public allowed him to "[communicate] to them that gospel which [Paul] preach[ed] among the Gentiles." He literally "laid out his case" to them, as the word used for "communicate" would imply.

This is why Peter could say "we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

Second, the salvation of Israel is when Jesus returns as King of the restored nation of Israel.

"Salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

The law has ALWAYS been undergirded by grace, the "same manner" in Acts 15:11. The means are different, though.

Israel has always had a corporate relationship with God, their relationship with Him is "I (God) will be their God, and they shall be My people," and, "Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I will be with them also."
We in the body of Christ have individual relationships with God, 1-on-1, personal. Our relationship with Him is "you are the temple of God and the spirit of God Dwells in you," and, "members of the household of God," and, "sons of God through faith," and "as we have many members in one body, . . . we . . . are one body in Chist, and individually members of one another."

And Paul said,
Romans 11:6 KJV — And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Yes, if you have grace, then there is no need for works. The moment you add works (aka, the law) it's no longer grace, but works.

Not understanding this is why people like Hoping thinks that he is no longer capable of sinning, because in order to make his position rational, he has to redefine what works are.

Are you saying that Peter disagreed with James?

Peter and James taught the same gospel.

Paul taught something different than what they taught.

Peter, however, recognized that, while understanding that Grace was a part of both.

Hence: "a different gospel, which is not another." (Galatians 1:6-7)

 

[Derf]

You're confusing the salvation of Israel with being saved by grace.

First, note that the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) took place 14 years after Paul initially when to Jerusalem to see Peter (Galatians 1:18) and 17 years after Paul's conversion (which itself was about one year after Christ's ascension). Also note that Paul was able to explain his gospel to the leadership in Jerusalem, privately, before the council. 3 years, let alone 17 years, is plenty of time for Paul to have somewhat solidified his knowledge of what his dispensation means, and explaining things privately before they were discussed in public allowed him to "[communicate] to them that gospel which [Paul] preach[ed] among the Gentiles." He literally "laid out his case" to them, as the word used for "communicate" would imply.

This is why Peter could say "we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

Second, the salvation of Israel is when Jesus returns as King of the restored nation of Israel.

"Salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

The law has ALWAYS been undergirded by grace, the "same manner" in Acts 15:11. The means are different, though.

Israel has always had a corporate relationship with God, their relationship with Him is "I (God) will be their God, and they shall be My people," and, "Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I will be with them also."
We in the body of Christ have individual relationships with God, 1-on-1, personal. Our relationship with Him is "you are the temple of God and the spirit of God Dwells in you," and, "members of the household of God," and, "sons of God through faith," and "as we have many members in one body, . . . we . . . are one body in Chist, and individually members of one another."



Yes, if you have grace, then there is no need for works. The moment you add works (aka, the law) it's no longer grace, but works.

What I'm getting at is that works are NEVER helpful in gaining salvation. You can never add anything to Christ's death to make it more efficacious. Any human who ever was, is, or will be requires Christ's death to save them from death, because all have sinned.

If James is preaching a gospel of works, even if only for Jews, it is not going to help them, because he's talking about salvation of individuals, not nations, and from death, not from some national catastrophe.
James 1:21 KJV — Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

James 5:20 KJV — Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Not understanding this is why people like Hoping thinks that he is no longer capable of sinning, because in order to make his position rational, he has to redefine what works are.

I agree this a problem, but the solution is not to say James preaches a gospel of faith + works when faith + works is never able to save. Hebrews was written to explain how the old covenant was NOT salvific.
Hebrews 7:18 KJV — For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
The old covenant was going away BECAUSE it was unable to save...and never was able to save.

Peter and James taught the same gospel.

I agree

Paul taught something different than what they taught.

I disagree.

Peter, however, recognized that, while understanding that Grace was a part of both.

Grace isn't grace if it requires works, according to Paul. It doesn't matter what age or dispensation you are in, if you are relying on your works to save you, you will die in your sins.
Romans 11:6 KJV — And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Paul says there is no such thing as grace plus works, but that there is such a thing as works that come from or after grace, with which James and Peter both can agree.

Hence: "a different gospel, which is not another." (Galatians 1:6-7)

A "different" gospel that is "not another" what? It's not another gospel. Thus it is not good news, unless it's the same gospel, but it's not.

 

[way 2 go]

I printed out a 5 or 6 item list of Paul's mentions of "works of the Law" in post 44....

1. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:27-28)
2. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; (Romans 9:32)
3. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)
4. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? {Galatians 3:2)
5. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:5)
6. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)

I don't see any mentions of other "works", except the disregarding of the OT's circumcision, dietary rules, sabbath keeping, fast keeping, tithing, etc.

are you trying to prove you're only seeing what you want to see ?
or
are you going with illegitimate transfer of meaning of works

(Ephesians 2:8-10) [8] For by grace are all of you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10]

Everyone who watches you.
Does a Christian ignore the needs of a child?
No, and if considering helping widows or orphans is a "work" to be refused, what happens to the widow and orphan?
Rejoice in the God given opportunities you have to manifest Christ on earth.

so I can boast of my works

​

If you can, why are we having this discussion?

we are having this discussion because you don't understand Mid Acts Dispensation

Paul fought against the OT's manner of salvation.

salvation by heritage

James taught that if you don't manifest Christ on earth you are not one of His. (paraphrasing)

faith + works

Ok, true stuff.
Are not men saved by faith?

faith the noun

(Ephesians 2:8) For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,

His faith was manifested by actions.
Would we be saying Abraham had faith if he had refused to offer his boy as a sacrifice?

yes Abraham had faith in the promise
David had Uriah the hittite killed , and He still had faith

Those are the Mosaic Laws Paul wrote against.
Circumcision, dietary rules etc.

no

I think Peter's vision changed that.

now tell us why Peter was given the vision at the time of Paul's conversion ?
(Acts 10:14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean
Paul's dispensation changed that.

Gal_2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised

I repeat..."If you are a Christian, serving one another should be bringing you great joy instead of the fear of "works".

confession through projection

You can be made unrighteous by ignoring the poor and needy, or cheat on your taxes..

no
(Ephesians 4:32) And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you.

You can prove/manifest your righteousness every time you volunteer at a food bank or hospital.

will I be more righteous ?

Yep. it all happened to Abraham before the Law was enforced.
His actions determined his righteousness.
What actions?
Believing.

faith ,the noun

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

 

[Hoping]

The Bapto Word-family in the Septuagint

A sincere Bible student feels that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, provides evidence that the Greek term bapto may signify the actions of either sprinkling or pouring, as a baptismal rite. What does the evidence actually reveal?

christiancourier.com

Your source is in error.
"Baptize" means "immerse, or, fully whelm".
Sprinkling is not a baptism.

 

[Hoping]

So your definition of baptism would be immersion,

Yes

but basically a ceremonial washing, yes?

The word "but" steers this in anothr direction.
Had you written...AND is basicfally a ceremonial washing, yes?"
My response is...the is nothing ceremonial about it.
Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins is the answer to a commandment of the Jesus, and of the Lord's apostles.

But being immersive is required for you to call it baptism, is this correct?

Immersed...Correct.

And you and I both know that you're promoting a partisan position in saying that, favoring the Baptists over almost everybody else. If I'm correct.

They won't repent before whatever thay constitute is baptism, so their "ceremony" is fruitless.

But you do believe baptism is a ceremonial washing, correct?

No.

But you see a ceremonial washing, yes?

No.

You're the one saying it's got to be immersive to be a baptism. Do you believe it is a ceremonial washing or not?

I don't feel that "ceremony" has anything to do with obedience to God.

Apparently it's because baptism means immersion "in the Greek."

Yes, it does.
It isn't even mentioned in the Hebrew.

(According to Derf's link.)
But certainly when people are instructed to wash themselves in the sea, we're talking about immersion, right? I can't imagine you go to the sea to ceremonially wash your flesh, and you're merely up to your ankles washing your feet.

Where is that commanded in the OT?

I don't think John the Baptist just washed people's feet in the Jordan.

Me either.
They were fully immersed.

There are a lot of examples of people washing their feet in the OT too, just so you know, so the practice was distinct and distinguished from all the other ceremonial washings
(sometimes washing your feet was just hygiene, but sometimes is was ceremonial, priestly)

Kind of off track, so what is the point?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your source is in error.

Or you're the one who's wrong... Which is far more likely...

"Baptize" means "immerse, or, fully whelm".

Do you really think that the Hebrews fully immersed their furniture in water?

(1.) As to the meaning of βαπτίζω, it is allowed, on all hands, that it is (at least sometimes) applied to acts involving the process of immersion both by profane and sacred writers (see above). But the best lexicographers agree that this is not its exclusive meaning, and none but a daring controversialist would assert that it is. The word βαπτίζω is derived from βαπτὸς, the verbal adjective of βάπτω, to wet thoroughly, and its etymological meaning is to put into a drenched or imbued condition (Meth. Quar. Rev. 1850, p. 406). In the New Testament it generally means to purify by the application of water. (See Beecher on Baptism; Murdock, in Bib. Sac. Oct. 1850, on the Syriac words for baptism.) "As the word βαπτίζω is used to express the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, etc. (Heb 9:10), for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, etc., it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by immersion or affusion, but only the thing done — that is, washing, or the application of water in some form or other. It nowhere signifies to dip, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or cleansing; and the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute, just as in the Lord's Supper the time of day, the number and posture of the communicants, the quantity and quality of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential by any part of Christians. If in baptism there be an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration, for that is the scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of divine influences (Mt 3:11; Mr 1:8,10; Lu 3:16-22; Joh 1:33; Ac 1:5; Ac 2:38-39; Ac 8:12,17; Ac 11:15-16). The term sprinkling, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purification (Isa 52:15; Eze 36:25; Heb 9:13-14), and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification" (Watson). So far, then, as the word βαπτίζω is concerned, there is no foundation for the exclusive theory of the Baptists.

Baptism from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

Baptism from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

www.biblicalcyclopedia.com

Sprinkling is not a baptism.

Yes, it is, according to scripture.

 

[Hoping]

are you trying to prove you're only seeing what you want to see ?
or
are you going with illegitimate transfer of meaning of works

What is written is not hard to interpret.

(Ephesians 2:8-10) [8] For by grace are all of you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10]

Amen to tht.
The works of the Law cannot save a man.
The actions of faith can though.
Hear, believe, obey.

so I can boast of my works

Why would you?
I would that your "boasted" of what God accomplishes for the obedeint by their obedience.

we are having this discussion because you don't understand Mid Acts Dispensation

I understand your POV, and am seeking what is the profit of its acceptance.

salvation by heritage

Salvation by the Law.

faith + works

The works provved the faith.

faith the noun

"Faith the noun" is a dead faith.
Written on paper but without power.

(Ephesians 2:8) For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,

Amen to that.
I am glad we can prove tht faith every single day.

yes Abraham had faith in the promise

If Abe' had refused to sacrifice his boy, we would not be discussiing his faith right now.
Disobedience is the antithesis of faith.

David had Uriah the hittite killed , and He still had faith

We will find out, on the day of Judgement.

no

That is where we diverge.
We can find lots of Paul's fights against circumcision and dietary rules, but we will never find him arguing against having faith, or getting water baptized in the name of the Lord for the remssion of sins, or receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, or remaining faithful until the end.

now tell us why Peter was given the vision at the time of Paul's conversion ?

I see no corrolation between the two events.

(Acts 10:14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean
Paul's dispensation changed that.

God's vision to Peter changed "that".

Gal_2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised

The gospel doesn't ever change in regard to the audience.
Gospel...Jesus was killed for our sins and raised from the dead three days after.
There may be differences of administration, and diversities of operation, but the gospel remains unchangeable.

confession through projection

If you are a Christian, serving one another should be bringing you great joy instead of the fear of "works".

no

NO?
So ignoring the needy and cheating on ones taxes does not make one unrighteous?
Wow....

(Ephesians 4:32) And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you.
will I be more righteous ?

If you do the things of Eph 4:32, you will be righteous.
Only the righteous do those things.
If you don't do them, you will be unrighteous.

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

Faith on paper is dead.
Faith in action is alive.

 

[Derf]

Your source is in error.
"Baptize" means "immerse, or, fully whelm".
Sprinkling is not a baptism.

Did you read it? What do you think about his points on the use of the "bapto" word family in the OT?
The rest is more of a rabbit trail?

 

[Derf]

If Abe' had refused to sacrifice his boy, we would not be discussiing his faith right now.
Disobedience is the antithesis of faith.

This is well-stated, Hoping, and seems to be the crux of James' letter.

 

[Hoping]

Did you read it? What do you think about his points on the use of the "bapto" word family in the OT?
The rest is more of a rabbit trail?

Yeah, I read it.
Baptiso (baptize) can have lots of usages,
But in the context of "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", it is a full immersion. (Acts 2:38)