You are responding to Mike in the exact same manner that you rebuked him for and asked me to rebuke him for.

I’m not sure about Mike, but I suspect he has as much if not more Greek study as I do. Which is enough to study the Greek text for what it says and define the words according to their original Greek meaning. I find it interesting that you will make this attempt to ridicule Mike for how much Greek he has “behind his tie” when you have yet to even acknowledge my exposing your attempt to define a Greek word by English usage. The only place I have found eis defined as you attempt to define it is in denominational commentaries, not respected and trustworthy Greek Lexicons and word studies. There is a difference between giving a definition and giving an interpretation. Mike is absolutely correct in his treatment of the word eis.

As for being cultishly adamant in our beliefs, the only thing I hold to is God’s word. I will not be moved from that solid foundation. Especially by the illogical and contradictory arguments of denominationalism. You have put forth a great deal of effort to try and prove that God’s word doesn’t mean what it says. I pray that you will repent of holding to your man-made doctrine and turn to the pure and powerful word of God.

For now, as long as Mike will be writing, I will leave the debate to those who like debating. Sorry for those who could have progressed. I would dare to say that you surely believe that salvation is loosable? I would not be surprised.

For other, like Norm, Jeff, David, it was a nice journey in your midst. Your cordiality was evident as well as your good exchange. You did not demonstrate any antagonism as it is the case with Mike. Sorry for him. But praise the Lord! My mission is not to convince anybody. Only the Holy Spirit would do that to him and others who believe the same lie.

It is you who have missed the point, not Jeff, not Norm, nor I, but you. Your understanding or should we say misunderstanding of the Greek word “eis” is based NOT upon proper Hermeneutics, but upon false precepts revolving around the myth of salvation by faith or grace alone. You point to Matthew 3:11 where “eis” is found “I indeed baptize you in water to (unto – KJV – for – NIV) repentance…” Like Mr. Robertson whose holds the same doctrinal position as yourself, you refuse to accept what John says, because it does not jive with your belief system. This was the same problem with the Jews, they could not accept that Jesus was the Christ because He was not what they pictured – they wanted a physical king, to take the physical throne of David, not a spiritual king, sitting on a spiritual throne.

Just because it does not meet your expectations, does not make it false. Mr. Thayer, whom I would think you would accept as a prominent authority – says of “eis” – “denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among.” OF A PLACE: entrance into a place, into, – OF TIME: denotes entrance into a period which is penetrated, as it were, duration through a time – such as – towards the first day of the week. USED METAPHORCIALLY: Retains the force of entering into anything. The point being that “eis” DOES ALWAYS maintain the same sense throughout the Bible. You are forced to use a different dictionary in order to make this word mean anything else!

The Jewish mindset has nothing whatsoever to do with the requirement for ALL men everywhere to hear the gospel, believe the gospel, repent of sins, confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and be immersed in water towards being cleansed in the blood of Christ. Are we required to care about the Jewish mindset as concerns Christ’s coming? I guess we should, in order to understand why they wanted Him crucified, but that is the only reason. The only way that their mindset will affect me, is in a way that I don’t follow in their footsteps!

Your teaching on the Jewish mindset is simply a furtherance of the false idea that there are two different gospels – one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. And it is TOTALLY grounded in denominational doctrine – not Biblical. The doctrine of “faith Only” was not taught until Martin Luther as an overreaction to the false Catholic doctrine of works salvation. Before that time, the Lord’s church taught exactly as the Bible teaches, no works of merit, but complete obedience to God’s will.

“WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?” does NOT hold a different answer for mankind. The only way it holds is different answer, is for those who refuse to submit to God’s will, and invent their own plan of salvation, their own methods of worship, their own church organizations.

“Quasi-Christian” apologists wrongly point to numerous verses that have NEVER declared that “faith only” is what saves. They must ADD TO the Word of God in order to MAKE it say what they believe. There is ONLY ONE passage in the Entire Bible that mentions “faith only” and it says NOT BY FAITH ONLY – James 2:24-26. The abuse of passages by the above mentioned individuals only proves what Jesus warned of – many false teachers will arise and lead many astray.

The argument has NEVER been that faith is A requirement of God UNTO salvation. We firmly and strongly believe that with all our hearts, and will defend it to the death. What we are defending against, is the unreasonable assertion that one is saved by “Faith ONLY” or “Faith ALONE” coupled with “Grace ONLY” or “Grace ALONE,” not to mention the willful ignoring of the fact that faith itself is a work! (John 6:28-29).

Proper Bible Hermeneutics requires the honest Bible student to gather ALL the relevant evidence on a subject BEFORE drawing a conclusion. “Faith ONLY” advocates do not follow this accepted precept. They simply pick out the verses that suit their doctrine, and ignore all others.

The Lord’s church on the other hand, is faithful in its proper use of Bible Hermeneutics. We maintain balance in our interpretation of the Scriptures. We don’t believe in salvation by baptism alone/only. We believe in EVERY facet of what God requires in order for an individual to benefit from His gracious gift of Christ’s death upon the cross. God has finished His part – which is what Jesus meant when He said upon the cross – “It is finished” (John 19:30). The rest is left up to us. God’s gracious gift of salvation is now offered to every person who will obey the conditions of receiving the gift. We go to EVERY passage that speaks of what men were required to do in order to be saved, and then follow that pattern. We don’t stop at “faith” and then assume there is nothing else.

As for works – There are works/actions required of men in order to become saved, and there are works/actions required of men to maintain their salvation (again, something that we disagree on).

I have yet to see Richard or anyone else with his belief system to give us a verse that states specifically that we are saved by “Faith only.” Nor has he given us Bible proof that one is united IN CHRIST by faith only. Where is the verse that says that? Now I do agree with Richard that repentance is a fruit of our faith – but let’s not stop there, so is confession and baptism.

Semitic Totality concept — Yawn, yawn – goes quite a bit out of the way in order NOT to make a point. Does nothing to disprove the necessity of baptism.

Again Richard throws out passages such Philippians 2:12 and dismisses it because it does not fall in line with HIS way of thinking. That’s exactly what got the Jews in trouble.

Richard, like every “faith only” advocate, has not come to the realization that there are differing works that are mentioned. There are (1) works/deeds/actions of the Law of Moses, which were required of the Jews only – (2) works/deeds/actions which men have invented in order to assumingly be pleasing to God – (3) works/deeds/actions required of all men by God.
When the Bible talks negatively about a “work/deed/action” then we know that it falls in the first two categories. But when the Bible speaks of a “work/deed/action” in a positive sense, then we are assured that it is necessary in order to please God and be saved.

What was the first “work/deed/action” that the people asked Jesus that God the Father expected of THEM? Jesus told them “to believe on Him” (John 6:28-29). Therefore, faith is a “work/deed/action’ that falls into category three, and is one of several “works/deeds/actions’ that God requires of every person on earth before they can be saved, and maintain their salvation. Of course Paul said in Romans 3:20 that by the “deeds/works/actions” of the LAW (of Moses) no flesh (Jew and Gentile) shall be justified in His sight.” Why? Because that LAW was nailed to the cross! And, it could do nothing to take away sins, like the NEW LAW of Christ could (Hebrews 9:22-28-10:4).

Again, we do not deny that faith is necessary (Hebrews 11:6). We are denying that faith is all there is (Acts 17:30; Matthew 10:32-33; Mark 16:16).

The inconsistency of Denominational doctrine is irrational on its face. There are no straw men other than the ones that they themselves invent. At least the Lord’s church consistently teaches that baptism is necessary. Denominations on the other hand say, it is not necessary but it is necessary. A logical contradiction!
Just like “Faith ONLY” by “Grace ONLY” – again a logical contradiction!

So far, Richard’s logic has failed him yet again. As has his use of irrational “authorities.”

Thanks for your candid words. However, you missed the point using the words of Jesus where it says: “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins.”

The problem is not there at all. None of us on this blog are saying that “eis” is NEVER used in the sense of “in order to”, as it is the case in the verse you quote. Your point is right in that case. The point is that “eis” has not ALWAYS this sense in the Bible. Context is the key. Now, you say that salvation is a gift and that “Baptism is that reaching out of the hand”. The point is bypassed again. In the Bible, baptism is not the thing we have to do to be saved. The thing (if this is a thing) to receive the gift of grace is to believe (faith) that this grace is the very means by which we are saved.

Now, I had said in a previous post that a Jewish mindset had to be understood properly to explain why baptism is so connected in the preaching of the early Church. Here it is. Watch out everybody here. Few people know that. It is not grounded in what denominations teach, it was known in the Jewish community even in the Old Testament time. So, be ready to be taught and learn what they did believe and understand. If you reject it, it is up to you, but you would be rejecting an historical fact.

“What must I do to be saved?” The question receives a different answer in every conceivable religious faith, and in this essay, we will pursue a single question: What is the Biblical view of the relationship between faith and works?

Christian apologists rightly point to numerous verses that declare that faith alone is what saves, and not any external act (John 3:16, 18, 36; 11:25-6; Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 John 5:1). We will show that in the Bible, works are to be understood as the inevitable product of a saving, living faith, and that it is not proper to say that we must perform works to be saved, but rather that we will perform works if we are saved. As Riddlebarger puts it [Christ the Lord, 104]:

…One who has exercised faith in Christ, and is united to Christ by that faith, will repent and will struggle to obey and yield. But these things are not conditions for nor component parts of faith itself. They are the fruits of saving faith. They are the inevitable activity of the new nature.”

We will then, by way of application, consider the role of baptism, the initial “work” of the convert, and its own role in the life of the believer. Then we will offer links below noting how various other faiths err in their use of the Bible on this subject.

The Semitic Totality Concept: YOU KOW IT?

Behind much of the thought in the Bible lies a “peculiarly Semitic” idea of a “unitive notion of human personality.” [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 59]. This notion combined aspects of the human person that we, in modern times, often speak of as separate entities: Nausea is thought of as a condition of the soul and not the stomach (Num. 21:5); companionship is said to be refreshing to the bowels (Philemon 7); and the fear of God is health to the navel (Prov. 3:8). This line of thinking can be traced through the Old Testament and into the New Testament (in particular, the concept of the “body of Christ”) and rabbinic literature.

Applied to the individual, the Semitic Totality Concept means that “a man’s thoughts form one totality with their results in action so that thoughts that result in no action are vain.” [ibid, 60]. To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has, “by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of self-conscious being.”

Thus Paul regards being an unbodied spirit as a form of nakedness (2 Cor. 5). Man is not whole without a body. A man is a totality which embraces “all that a man is and ever shall be.”

Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

“The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.”

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. “Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered — the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity.” [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111]

Requirements or Results?

Objection: If works are the result of salvation, then why did Christ and Paul so often exhort others to maintain moral standards? Doesn’t this view make such commands meaningless?

The problem with this sort of objection is twofold. First, when appealing to the commands of Christ (like the Sermon on the Mount), they are correctly understood as commandments; yet they are not commandments alone, but a mirror that demonstrates our inability to meet up to God’s standards. Romans 3:19-20 tells us, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” The primary purpose of the law, and of the Sermon on the Mount, was condemnation, not salvation. Second, as Horton observes, “the argument used confuses the indicative (who we are in Christ) with the imperative (the command to respond to the indicative in a certain way).” [Christ the Lord, 113] Paul does not merely issue commands; he rather calls upon the believer, in this and other exhortational passages, to be consistent with the new life they have in Christ:

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him…” (Romans 6:1-8)

“If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. 4:21-24)

Under the Semitic Totality paradigm, thoughts that result in no action are vain. When Paul encourages believers to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” (Phil. 2:12) he is not telling us that we must do our part to be saved. We already possess that righteousness; what is needed is for us to come to terms with this and live consistently with it.

What about the many passages that indicate a judgment that will be based on works? Matthew 7:21-24 and 25:31-46 are often cited in this regard, as is Romans 2:5-10:

“But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile…”

However, this understanding of this verse fails as before on the qualification of Romans 3:20: “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” Romans 2:5-10 does mean that a person who persists in good deeds will be granted eternal life, but as Romans 3 goes on to show, that is irrelevant, because no one can live a life in accordance with the commandments of God, and completely faithful obedience is no more than a theoretical means of obtaining justification.

The passages in Matthew, then, show no more than that those who had faith actually lived it out, as we would expect. As Moo puts it: [Romans, 142]

It is a continual seeking after eternal rewards, accompanied by a persistent doing of what is good, that is the condition for a positive verdict at the judgment. Paul never denies the validity of this principle, but he goes on to show that no one meets the conditions necessary for this principle to become a reality. It is obvious, then, that faith alone — a living and real faith — is all that can save, as is made clear by Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

The Role of Baptism

We are now prepared to offer a case study of the role of works and its relation to faith, using the example of the rite of convert baptism. We will see that the answer to the question, “Is baptism necessary for salvation?”, is that the question is out of order. If there is any question that needs to be asked, it is this: “If you are saved, and you know what baptism means and that it was commanded by Christ, why would you not be baptized?” The Church of Christ accuses other Churches (or denominations as they call them) that we do not believe in the necessity of baptism for the Christian. This is totally a straw man to say such a stupidity. All truly born again Christians have to believe that baptism is essentiial in the Chrisitan life and is commanded by our Lord himself. There is no doubt about that. What they should understand is that baptism is an act of obedience testifying that the baptism of the Holy Spirit has been received by the believer and it is when one receives the latter that he is saved. Interestingly, in spite of all the counter-arguments that have been given to my posts no one has been able to answer the question when I asked what about the one who repents on the battlefield and had not enough time to be baptized because he was killed immediately killed or was already dying when he believe that he had to repent before passing away? To reply that it is an exception is too an easy answer. Life is full of exceptional things that may happen to us, whose we have no control. We must look at it at face value.

One does not become baptized to be saved; one is saved and is therefore baptized. Faith that is true inevitably manifests itself in obedience, and being that baptism is the first act declared for the believer by Christ, the true believer will gladly undergo baptism. This is that way we should apply the teaching of James and no other way.

Here is again some verses used by a number of groups in this regard. Verse which seem to have a unique usage by a particular group (i.e. the Churches of Christ).

Acts 2:37-8: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” By the way, if the verse had to be read for what it says, we should say that the sequence is also importance. Here is what it would give: Repentance – Baptism (not in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, but in the name of Jesus alone) – Remission of sins – Receiving of the Holy Spirit. Now, no one would dare to espouse such a sequence, precisely because we see other things in other passages of the Bble. For example, Cornelius and his family received the Holy Spirit before being baptized (Acts 10:44-48; 11:17-18). Whatever one might say here, he has to deal with the text without any support to make another viewpoint to back up his saying. Secondly, if one tells me: “Richard, saying that we have to be baptized in the name of Jesus is not contradictory to being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is the same thing” I would reply immediately to this person that to be consistent to your viewpoint, this is not the same thing since you said that we have to take the text for what it says and not for what it means. You would be cornered doing so. And you say that you can baptize only in the name of Jesus, then just tell us that not only you are a member of the Churches of Christ, but are a partaker of the “JOM” Jesus Only Movement.

A key here is the word “for” (eis) – a word that can mean “for” or “because of”. If eis is taken to mean “for” then it is taken to mean that baptism is essential to salvation; if it means “because of”, then it is not. However, “into” is the closest approximation of eis in this verse, so that Peter tells the crowd to be “baptized into the remission of sins.”

Read in light of the Semitic Totality Concept, it indicates that believers will practice this behavior to validate their commitment to Christ. Baptism is just one part of that behavior is inextricably linked to repentance and salvation.

Does the lack of the behavior mean one is not saved? No, but one does have to ask why anyone would not produce the validating behavior. Do they understand the command? Are they hydrophobic? Why would they refuse baptism if they knew that Christ had commanded it? Can we picture someone hearing the preaching of Peter and saying, “Peter, that’s good news, I’ll repent as you say, but I’m definitely not being baptized, even though I know it was commanded by the one I now call Lord.”? It would be ridiculous to reason that way.

Baptism, like any validating behavior, is “essential to salvation” only in the sense that if you don’t want to go through with it, and there is no barrier to understanding, then it is clear that you do not possess salvation. Thought and action are expected, under the Semitic Totality paradigm, to correspond. The conversion and the baptism are regarded as one process, not because the latter is required for salvation, but because it is expected in light of salvation.

Hence it is off the mark to make much of that Peter commanded the baptism, and thereby conclude that baptism is a “necessity” rather than an inevitable result. A command is often needed simply because the person being commanded has no idea what they should do next (as would have been the case with the Pentecost converts), having no knowledge of what the process is; and it could hardly be phrased in any less demanding language.

Acts 22:16: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Some argue that this verse teaches that Paul’s sins would be washed away following his baptism, and thus indicates the necessity of baptism. But under the Semitic Totality concept, this is simply not the case. Dear friends, is it more clear now? Jewish people in the first century just did not think that way. This is a document historical fact in rabbinic literature.

Moreover, if one wants to read this verse as a chronology, rather than as a totality expression as we would read it, one wonders why calling on the name of Jesus is done last. It is more in line with the anthropological data to read Paul’s quote of Ananias as a summary of a total commitment process which involved confession, obedience, and regeneration, and the “calling on the name of the Lord” as the “overarching term” in the passage. [For points in Acts, see commentaries by Polhill (461) and Kistemaker (790).]

Gal. 3:27: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Although some indeed have taken the “for” here to “indicate that the status of divine sonship is contingent upon the ritual of water baptism” it is difficult to find this point in a letter in which Paul spends so much time trying to show the Galatians that they do not need to be circumcised. If baptism had replaced circumcision as an initiatory rite, then why does Paul not simply point to baptism over and over again? (Note that Paul in vv. 3:2-3 asks if they received the Spirit — not if they were baptized.)

As Longenecker writes: “…Paul is not simply replacing one external rite (circumcision) by another external rite (baptism). If that were so, i.e., if he viewed baptism as a supplement to faith in much that the same way that the Judaizers viewed circumcision as a supplement to faith, he could have simply settled the dispute at Galatia by saying that Christian baptism now replaces circumcision.”

In both pagan and Jewish contexts, the idea of “clothing” oneself hearkens back to specific ideas. In pagan contexts, one would often, after a ceremonial washing, don the distinctive garb of the god being worshipped in order to identify with the god’s persona. In a secular context, one which Paul’s readers would recognize, a Roman youth upon coming of age would remove a childhood garment and don one suited for adults.

In the Bible, the idea of clothing oneself with an attribute is found in several places (2 Chr. 6:41; Job 29:14; Rom. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:8; Eph. 6:11-17). What is represented is an inward decision, and thus those who are “clothed with Christ” have made the inward decision which baptism is the corresponding action for. One no more obtains a position in Christ via baptism than a Roman child could have become an adult by donning an adult’s clothing. {See Galatians commentaries by George (276) and Longenecker (156).]

In light of this passage, we also see that once the Semitic Totality concept is understood, other passages become more clear in their meaning as well. Romans 6:3-4 (“Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life “) and 1 Corinthians 12:13 (“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were all given the one Spirit to drink”) show not that baptism is the point at which we connect with the cross, and are saved, but that it is the inevitable expression of one who has indeed connected with the cross.

Titus 3:5: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost…”

Some argue that “washing” means baptism, but it is better understood as a figurative term for the regeneration process of cleansing from sin (in line with the Jewish allegory of water noted above). The word Paul uses for “regeneration” (paliggenesia) has connotations associated with renovation, resurrection, and new life, and the word behind “renewal” (anakainosis) is used elsewhere in the New Testament in connection with the renewing, cleansing work of the Holy Spirit. (For similar imagery, see Romans 6:4, 1 Cor. 6:11, and Eph. 5:26.) The two words are “practically synonyms and thus express a unity”, and the fact that a single preposition governs the entire phrase indicates that the “washing of regeneration” and the “renewing of the Holy Ghost” are the same event.

Beyond this, there is no evidence that “washing” (loutron) was ever used of Christian baptism in the New Testament. It is used elsewhere only in Ephesians 5:26, where it must also be assumed to mean baptism. [See Pastorals commentaries by Quinn (195, 224), Fee (157), and Towner (256).]

1 Peter 3:20-21: “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

We have noted that the Semitic Totality concept radically affects our understanding of verses concerning the interrelation of faith, works, and particularly baptism. Is there any evidence that the early Jewish apostles as Christians had difficulty in communicating this difference in anthropological view to their Gentile converts? I believe that there is, and that this passage serves as an example of how they coped with the problem. But we need to first look at a parallel from corresponding Biblical and secular sources.

“And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4)

From this verse there emerges a puzzle, for while Mark says that John preached “a baptism of repentance,” we find what appears to be the opposite proclaimed of John’s baptism in this passage from Josephus, who said that John called for his converts:

“…to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and purity towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be pleasing to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed by right behavior.” What this passage of Josephus shows is this. As a first century Jew, he knew well what we have called here the Totality Concept.

Critics of the Bible often assume that either Mark or Josephus are in error. But Peter and Josephus are rather actually explaining to their Gentile readers–those who do not think within the paradigm of Semitic Totality–what the role of baptism is, in their terms as opposed to Semitic terms.

In fact, that the solution lies in understanding also why there appears to be a contradiction between Mark and Josephus: Peter is correcting a Gentile misapprehension of baptism in terms of the Semitic Totality concept.

What, then, is baptism?

It does not wash away the “filth” (sins) of the “flesh” (human weakness). Rather, it is “the pledge of a good conscience toward God,” (not “for” as the NASB reads) a conscience knowing its duty to be baptized according to the command of Christ, that good conscience having been achieved by the moral cleansing that has already taken place through the forgiveness of sins. [See Michaels’ 1 Peter commentary, 213-16.)

I’m sorry but you are the one who started the whole thing, with your arrogant attitude. I felt that since you came to the table with that attitude that that was the way you wanted to play ball. But if you are willing to stop the name calling, then I certainly would be happy to do the same.
My goal, as is the goal of Norm and others, is to present the unadulterated gospel as Jesus intended for it to be taught. One way, and only one way. To speak only the oracles of God. As I pointed out, there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, as Jesus and Paul did so. But if you are willing to stop, then I too will stop and we both can just focus on trying to find the ONE truth as taught in the Scriptures.

As for Richard, he wants to play the ole shell game, to take the attention away from the way he is falsely arguing and name calling, and re-direct my way, when I used most of his own words in my response, which means he is the one needs some good sense.

I look forward to hear what he will post next. Isn’t this exciting?

Seriously though. You say that “eis” means “because of” not “in order to”, if this is so then Jesus died because our sins were already forgiven. Matthew 26:28 states, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins.” If our sins were already forgiven then what was the point of Jesus dying?

As for Grace, yes it is a gift. but, like any other gift something must be done to obtain it. A simple example is this, someone gives you a gift, but you still have to reach your hand out and take it in order to obtain it. Such is the same for salvation, yes it is a gift but we still have to reach out our hands to obtain it. Baptism is that reaching out of the hand.

As for “faith only”, James 2:24 states, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. This is the only place in the entire Bible that the phrase “faith only” is used. However, it completely destroys the doctrine of “faith only”.

No offense. Now, regarding the comments and every allusions from Mike, it is Not to be continued…

I will continue on the subject and wisdom will prevail.