Re: Baptism -- Qohelet Web Ministry

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:03:11 04/10/02 Wed
Author: Jay Dee
Subject: Re: Baptism
In reply to: Richard 's message, "Re: Baptism" on 16:23:04 04/07/02 Sun

I can see that we are mostly in agreement here but I find two things I would like to know more about how you arrrived at your conclusions.

[1] Have you given any thought to the idea that the example of the thief comes to us while the Old Covenantlaw--i.e. the Mosiac Law is in effect.

I would say that the Gospels represent a time of transition. The voice of prophecy was quiet after the time of the rebuilding following the Babylonian exile. After nearly 400 years of silence, John the baptist breaks the silence, not with merely more prophecy, but with a message of preparation for the rule of God. We see Jesus clearly making a break with the old and bringing in the new.

Regardless of whether the theif was saved under the old covenant or the new, the fact remains that he was not able to "bring forth fruits of repentance" as John the baptist had commanded in his preaching. His baptism into repentance for the forgiveness of may have been intended to be part of that fruit.

The way the story is narrated, what saved the theif was not John's baptism or anything prior. It gives no indication of that. However, the narration of the story does make it clear that the theif put his faith in Jesus.

Mankind in his sinful state has ALWAYS been justified by faith. Abraham is an example that several New Testament books use as an example of justification by faith. Faith is connected with action. James makes this point in James 2. Paul does in a more subtle way in Romans 4. Abraham believed God.... and he was able to perform.

However, the theif was not able to demonstrate his faith in anyway being hung on a cross. He could not "obey" any commands. But Jesus could tell the genuiness of his faith, so he saved him. He has the authority to forgive sins. What if the man did not receive John's baptism? What if he never obeyed a thing? Jesus saw his faith, and forgave him. It mattered not what was done before. He has all rule, authority and power.

[a] That said law was given on to the Jews and never ever to the Gentiles? That is most of us today

I could comment on this, but maybe I am dense. Did I bring this up and is it relevant to this discussion??

[b] That the New Testament as we have the books are not all New Covenant

Once again, the Gospels are a transition. Jesus was a Jew, but he didn't come to teach everyone how to be a Jew. He came to usher in the New Kingdom. His mission ultimately included all the "nations" which was a common Jewish way of referring to the Gentiles. In his final commission, he told his disciples to make disciples of all the nations, and part of that included "teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you." We must keep in mind that it is an oversimplification to merely say Jesus "abolished the law." He commented on the law, taught from the law, and referred to it as God's word. Jesus specifically said in the sermon on the Mount that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to "make them full." In the teaching that follows, we can see what he clearly meant by making it full. The sacrifices were clearly done away with since Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Hebrew writer talks at length about this.

[c] That from Hebrews a will or testament--in this case that of Jesus does not take effect until Acts 2?

It went into effect when he died. However, the disciples did not start preaching it until Acts 2.

Here, my question is--How do you determine that the thief is an exception to Acts 2--for when I see the fifty day difference between the death of the thief and the beginning of the new--I am having problems understanding..

I never thought of the theif being an exception to Acts 2, though I can see how I must have communicated that. The exception I see with the theif is that he is an exception to the timeless principle of justification by faith.

Ok--God does not change--but God did change something--God changed covenants--took away the one just for the Jews and made a new one--for both Jews and Gentiles.

God's "character" does not change. This does not mean he will not change something. He relented when he decided to destroy Ninevah in Jonah. He relented when he decided to destroy Israel in the wilderness and start all over with just Moses. Even thought adultery and murder were both punishable by death by God's own law, God did not require David's life. God is not a black and white justice machine. He is the living God. Yes, he makes exceptions. That was my point, and nothing else.

YOu said,

In every other case in the New Covenant--the supernatural spiritual gifts were never given to save but given to saved folks..

My point exactly! It appears that Cornelius was saved before his immersion! Paul said that the spirit comes by hearing with faith in Galatians 3. He also said we are justified by faith in Romans 5 and many other places. We are to demonstrate our faith in Jesus as Lord by submission to baptism. After that, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit himself. In some cases the Spirit gives miraculous gifts to the people he indwells.

Cornelius is clearly an exception to this rule. He received the spirit by faith. Normally, people received the spirit after their baptism, just as Peter preached in Acts 2. However, Cornelius was an exception to this. The spirit was to be poured out on all flesh. It has just occured to me that Peter did not understand this even though he quoted the prophecy from Joel. God had to bring him and Cornelius together through divine messengers and demonstrate it before Peter's eyes before he understood what "all flesh" meant. Anyway, I believe that this is what made Cornelius' conversion so unusual.

Once again, I would caution against a mechanistic view of God and salvation. Bottom line is that God is the one who saves, and he does it on the basis of our faith. He has stiputated how he wants us to demonstrate that faith. A person who refuses to demonstrate it in that way obviously does not have faith.

As far as the "spirit" in the Old Testament, I am studying that topic. I am not so sure that the "spirit" in the Old Testament is the same thing as the "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament. After some surface study, I am beginning to wonder if the doctrine of the "Holy Spirit" is a doctrine unique to the New Testament in much the same was a the doctrine of the Resurrection is. But I am still studying this. If you have any insight on this, maybe we could start a new thread.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Baptism -- Richard, 15:49:26 04/11/02 Thu
- Re: Baptism -- Jay Dee, 00:45:33 04/12/02 Fri