Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Repent and be Baptized...for the Remission of Sins

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Then the eunuch was baptized with water. But again, before he was baptized with water he had to believe.

    And everyone who believes is saved:

    "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life" (Jn.3:15-16).

    So since the eunuch believed in the Lord Jesus he received eternal life.
    But does that necessarily mean that the eunuch was in the BOC?
    In other words, is only the BOC promised eternal life, or can eternal life be granted to a group that is not the BOC?

    We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
    They already know monsters exist.
    We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
      I know what Paul said, "Even also as..."
      You might know what he said but you certainly do not understand what he said. And that is why you just ignored my last post to you.

      According to you David's faith was not accounted to him for righteousness even though Paul put his name right in the middle of the context on his discourse about that very thing. According to you even though David is named here his salvation had nothing to do with the "blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"
      "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Ro.4:5-7).

      Why would Paul mentioned David's name if David had nothing to do with the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works? Why would Paul then quote David to bolster his argument about one's faith being counted for righteousness?

      Comment


      • #93
        How is it all threads continue to end up being about the same subject?

        Anyway, a word from an ancient believer in the Preservation of the Text, who at the same time had also believed the following about its Word to him...

        Psalm 19

        7. The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
        8. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
        9. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
        10. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
        11. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
        12. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
        13. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
        14. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
          You might know what he said but you certainly do not understand what he said. And that is why you just ignored my last post to you.
          David was a prophet who wrote about a future time when sins were covered.

          Paul uses many scriptures of the prophets to prove his case of what is future for them is present for the Body of Christ.

          We disagree. Do you want to continue until you have ground me into a pillar of salt?
          Originally posted by Interplanner
          They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
          Originally posted by Interplanner
          You're too literal to get it.
          Originally posted by Interplanner
          The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
            David was a prophet who wrote about a future time when sins were covered.

            Paul uses many scriptures of the prophets to prove his case of what is future for them is present for the Body of Christ.

            We disagree. Do you want to continue until you have ground me into a pillar of salt?
            Wouldn't that be with a pillar into salt

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Danoh View Post
              Wouldn't that be with a pillar into salt
              If I was only half the wordsmith you are, Danoh the Great.

              Originally posted by Interplanner
              They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
              Originally posted by Interplanner
              You're too literal to get it.
              Originally posted by Interplanner
              The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Tambora View Post
                But does that necessarily mean that the eunuch was in the BOC?
                In other words, is only the BOC promised eternal life, or can eternal life be granted to a group that is not the BOC?
                There were many who received eternal life prior to the beginning of the BOC, as witnessed by the Lord Jesus' words spoken to the Jews who lived under the law:
                "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

                In this verse the Greek word translated "believes" and the Greek word translated "has" are both in the "present" tense.

                In The Blue Letter Bible we read the following meaning of the present tense:
                "The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense."

                Therefore, John 5:24 is saying that those who were believing at the time the Lord Jesus spoke those words had already received eternal life. That is what is meant as something being "viewed as occuring in actual time."

                So once a person believes he receives eternal life. Anything which happens to anyone after he believes cannot contribute in any way to that person's receiving eternal life. Since a believer receives eternal life before a drop of water ever touches him then we can know that submitting to the rite of water baptism contributes nothing to anyone's salvation.

                At this point I would like the focus of this thread to remain on water baptism and whether or not the Jews who lived under the law had to submit to the rite of water baptism in order to be saved.

                Thanks!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                  If I was only half the wordsmith you are, Danoh the Great.

                  Mount Pilot High School, brother, lol

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                    David was a prophet who wrote about a future time when sins were covered.
                    No, Paul was writing about his own experiences:
                    "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity...I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin" (Ps.32:1-2,5).

                    Why would Paul insert David's name and quote his words in the middle of a discourse about one's faith being counted for righteousness if David had nothing at all to do with any of those things?

                    Your idea makes no sense!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                      Why would Paul insert David's name and quote his words in the middle of a discourse about one's faith being counted for righteousness if David had nothing at all to do with any of those things?

                      Your idea makes no sense!
                      Because David was a prophet, and his words agreed with Paul's point.
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      You're too literal to get it.
                      Originally posted by Interplanner
                      The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                        Because David was a prophet, and his words agreed with Paul's point.
                        Yes, his words agreed with Paul's point because David himself was saved apart from works:
                        "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Ro.4:5-7).
                        Last edited by Jerry Shugart; September 12th, 2015, 09:16 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                          Because David was a prophet, and his words agreed with Paul's point.
                          In the same way that Isaiah was a prophet and spoke of making straight the highway for our God. Isaiah 40:3 Or here Isaiah 61:10. Or Job here. Job 19:25

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                            Because David was a prophet, and his words agreed with Paul's point.
                            Forgive me for how this might come across given our difference in understanding of some things, STP...please take it in the spirit it is meant - in the spirit of sharing and or exploring together differences in our understanding.

                            From your understanding; how do you see this that you have just asserted - how would an OT Prophet's words agree with the Apostle Paul's?

                            Yours in Him,

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                              Forgive me for how this might come across given our difference in understanding of some things, STP...please take it in the spirit it is meant - in the spirit of sharing and or exploring together differences in our understanding.

                              From your understanding; how do you see this that you have just asserted - how would an OT Prophet's words agree with the Apostle Paul's?

                              Yours in Him,
                              Having sins covered is something that applies to all dispensations. It's a matter of different timing, and how one qualifies to get it.

                              Paul used the prophets many times, led by the Spirit, in ways that may seem out of their context to us.
                              Originally posted by Interplanner
                              They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                              Originally posted by Interplanner
                              You're too literal to get it.
                              Originally posted by Interplanner
                              The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                                In the same way that Isaiah was a prophet and spoke of making straight the highway for our God. Isaiah 40:3 Or here Isaiah 61:10. Or Job here. Job 19:25
                                Yes, just because the prophet David agreed that it is wonderful to have sins forgiven , that does not mean that David enjoyed the same grace in his lifetime as we do in this dispensation...or that he was already saved, by grace through the faith of Christ, like we are.
                                Originally posted by Interplanner
                                They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                                Originally posted by Interplanner
                                You're too literal to get it.
                                Originally posted by Interplanner
                                The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X