Baptism purpose Sign of the covenant.

[e.r.m.]

Romans 4: 23-24. Abraham's waterless baptism is the pattern for us in the NT.

The one same gospel, the one same faith only (Eph 4:5).

Dr. O

Romans 4:23-24 is not an exclusive statement. It does not say faith alone. You are saying faith alone.

Ephesians 4:5 Which applies to Acts 2:38-39 There's not a baptism in Jesus's name Acts 2:38-39 for the Jews, and a different baptism in Jesus's name Acts 10:47-48 for the gentiles.
Ephesians 4:5-6 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; [6] one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

 

[e.r.m.]

You are confusing contexts. Acts 2 is directed toward Israelites. This is very different than Romans 1:7 which is addressed to the whole church. In Acs 17:22 Paul speaks to Gentiles. Why is it that you cannot see or use these easy contexts?

It seems as if you have some predetermined creed that you feel compelled to support no matter what the common sense context of the Bible says.

Dr. O

The point is that although Peter was speaking to a group of Jews in Acts 2 he was still allowed to and DID include other people, beyond those he was speaking to in Acts 2:39 as Paul included others beyond those he was speaking to in Romans 10:1, Acts 17:22, 30.

There is no confusion.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hebrews 9:16-17 is a reference to three places in the OT where the context was national Israel alone. To avoid confusion, start with Jer 31:31. Why is it that you do not know this context?

Dr. O

The new covenant applies to gentiles as well
1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6.

Take care and may God bless you.

 

[sincerly]

Here's part of the problem. How do you interpret the new covenant? Is it a new gospel?

I hold that the new covenant pertains to Israel alone. Hence its context of Jer 31. In Heb 8, the new covenant is contrasted with the old covenant that was mediated with Moses. It again is specifically addressed to Israel. It is a national covenant.

This national covenant has nothing to do with God's covenant with humanity with respect to eternal life. There is no new covenant in the NT that gives a different way or application or anything else different than Abraham - our pattern in the NT (Rom 4:23-24).

So where was the covenant that saves us revealed? Gen 3:15 is the answer. From the advent of the first sin, God moves with His Promised Seed. Faith in His covenantal promise saved every OT saint and will save every NT saint in the exact same way.

You must not confuse the covenants.
Dr. O

But, in this thread, you have confused the Covenants ("I hold"), but that is another subject for another thread.
e r. m. is guilty of contextual misunderstanding in this thread.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, I missed you, I thought you had forgotten me, lol. Just messing with you.

I can't say I ever was taught an approach to God's word. Somewhere along the line I learned that interpretation requires an understanding of context. I would go further and state that spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
Everyone is. Even those in the Bible 1 Timothy 4:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Matthew 15:1-9
Someone may not have have sat down with you and taught you their approach, but protestants have a very distinctive style, which you convey almost verbatimly. Also, MANY refer to their biases as spritually discerned, Pentecostals are the first that come to mind (not saying they're right or wrong). We are to spiritually discern, but that involves listening to the Spirit above our own biases. Not something to take lightly.


However that is not the case. Baptism was originally and continues to be a public proclamation of repentance.
Please tell me, says who?

I agree that speaking of ones salvation at that time is incidental but not totally foreign to the concept of making a public profession. However my church required the public profession first and did the baptism afterwards so that they were only connected by an assumption that people knew what the baptism was for. So for that reason baptism had been relegated to only a symbol of the confession that had already been made. Why then bother with the baptism at all one might say?
Great example of the protestant approach to the Bible. How does it not worry protestants that no one in the Bible ever referred to baptism as a profession of faith? And that they build a WHOLE theology around something not in the Bible?

I say because the immersion in water carries the symbolism of salvation ie dieing to oneself and being born again to new life in Jesus. Ro 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Baptists insert the "symbolism", not Paul.

Not when it is misinterpreted.
It is an uphill battle to try to justify the notion "Biblically" that baptism is a work. That's a man made doctrine.

However the verse is about forgiveness of sins which was given by God long before Jesus ws born.
Which verse?

Don't let the "and" fool you because it is belief that saves, when Jesus mentions the opposite He leaves out baptism which reaveals the true nature of what He was saying.
I haven't heard this one in a long time. It's an older argument with a fatal flaw.
What He said in the entire verse is "the true nature of what He was saying".
Without a baptist sitting next to a reader giving a qualifier, such as the one you gave, many readers will walk away believing that baptism is a part of salvation. Jesus did not qualify His statement. He left it just the way he said it. The word explains itself. I asked someone who has little Biblical knowledge and had never before seen the verse, whether based on what it says, if belief and baptism are both part of being saved, or no. He said "Yes". Jesus left it just as he said it. John 12:49-50.

Again baptism doesn't forgive sins, God does when a person repents.
It is a misquote that we say baptism forgives. You need to at least quote correctly. God forgives when a person believes, repents, and is baptized. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38.

There doesn't have to be a verse negating it since it doesn't exist in scripture in the first place.
Acts 2:38, for example.

That verse is about physical salvation not salvation of the soul. It basicly says that a soul that sins will die and that is true even after a person has received Jesus as Savior. If I walk off a cliff I will die.
However Jesus keeps me from walking off cliffs because He is my Savior.
There are more.
Romans 5:9-11 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! [10] For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! [11] Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
I have seen people claim that everyone on earth is already saved, faith or not. Not every scripture on salvation mentions faith.

If a person were able to completely repent his sins ie never do any, then he would be saved just as much as a person having Jesus as Savior. However there is no such person who can avoid sin in his own power.
Agreed.

I suppose we are all products of our teachers in some sense. However I don't appraoch scripture with the concept that I need to think about what my teachers have said nor do I approach scripture with the concept that my own thinking about it is best. I appraoch scripture withthe consept that the Paraclete will guide me to an understanding of it.

Mr 1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

As for what is done today, there are many aberrations such as infant baptism. However the adult baptisms that I have witnessed were testimonies to a changed life.

If that were the case then the baptism of John would have been enough but Paul did not see it that way: Acts 19:4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus.
5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
So Paul is saying that baptism has the added dimension of believing in Jesus. Now the people did not get baptized in the name of Jesus in order to believe but because they did believe already.

If you are saying people actually physically die when they are baptised there must be a paucity of adherents left alive. Otherwise I believe the evidence points to death in this verse as being symbolical.

Are you saying that nothing physical is done in baptism? Really it is just the imagination of a person's mind? Or maybe God magically puts a person into the water?

People may claim that everyone is saved but scripture doesn't support that concept. Faith does not have to be mentioned since salvation is by grace through faith. However grace without faith is dead.

However He was not saying that each was a requirement for salvation only that the result was a person's salvation and that can come simply from belief. Granted that there are some passages that could mislead a person a bit at first glance. However it does not matter as long as the person decides from the verse to believe then baptism is superfluous.

 

[e.r.m.]

Muffled,
I suppose we are all products of our teachers in some sense. However I don't approach scripture with the concept that I need to think about what my teachers have said nor do I approach scripture with the concept that my own thinking about it is best. I appraoch scripture withthe consept that the Paraclete will guide me to an understanding of it.
I had to look up paraclete. Ok.

Mr 1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.
Mssing your point here.

As for what is done today, there are many aberrations such as infant baptism. However the adult baptisms that I have witnessed were testimonies to a changed life.
Infant baptism aberration - Agreed.
It makes sense that if you attend a church that believes as such, then this would be the only baptism you would witness. It would follow that if you attended a church that believed in Acts 2:38-39, all you would see are people getting baptized in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins.

If that were the case then the baptism of John would have been enough but Paul did not see it that way: Acts 19:4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus.
5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
So Paul is saying that baptism has the added dimension of believing in Jesus. Now the people did not get baptized in the name of Jesus in order to believe but because they did believe already.
Nor was anyone before Jesus's resurrection baptized in Jesus's name. Mark 16:16 said those who believe & are baptized will be saved. Separate items.
No one ever said baptism created belief. The teaching is belief, then baptism in Jesus's name, then saved. Belief in Jesus (not being saved first) is a pre-requisite for baptism.

If you are saying people actually physically die when they are baptised there must be a paucity of adherents left alive. Otherwise I believe the evidence points to death in this verse as being symbolical.
Romans 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
Neither symbolic, nor physical death. The symbolic 'purpose' for baptism that protestants repeat to death was never 'talked about that way' by those, such as Paul who would have made at least a single reference if they believed as protestants do today.

Are you saying that nothing physical is done in baptism? Really it is just the imagination of a person's mind? Or maybe God magically puts a person into the water?
No one denied the physical aspect in baptism, as there is no denying the physical aspect of confessing with one's mouth 'Jesus is Lord'. The burden of proof for protestants is to show that baptism 'is a work' according to the Bible.

People may claim that everyone is saved but scripture doesn't support that concept. Faith does not have to be mentioned since salvation is by grace through faith. However grace without faith is dead.
Neither faith, nor baptism have to be mentioned everytime. Since they are both stated for salvation/forgiveness of sins, they're both true.

However He was not saying that each was a requirement for salvation only that the result was a person's salvation and that can come simply from belief. Granted that there are some passages that could mislead a person a bit at first glance. However it does not matter as long as the person decides from the verse to believe then baptism is superfluous.
'Simply, Alone, Only, Just, etc.' is the piece that protestants add to the scriptures.

 

[e.r.m.]

Ascund,

The new covenant may be the first covenant for the gentiles, but it's still the same covenant.

 

[sincerly]

Ascund,

The new covenant may be the first covenant for the gentiles, but it's still the same covenant.

e r.m., there are many verses which stated the God given laws/covenants were for all persons who choose to have GOD AS THEIR GOD.(Ex.12:49; Lev.18:26; 19:34)

 

[e.r.m.]

e r.m., there are many verses which stated the God given laws/covenants were for all persons who choose to have GOD AS THEIR GOD.(Ex.12:49; Lev.18:26; 19:34)

I agree. Good references. Thank you.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r.m., there are many verses which stated the God given laws/covenants were for all persons who choose to have GOD AS THEIR GOD.(Ex.12:49; Lev.18:26; 19:34)

I agree. Good references. Thank you.

You are welcome.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled,
I suppose we are all products of our teachers in some sense. However I don't approach scripture with the concept that I need to think about what my teachers have said nor do I approach scripture with the concept that my own thinking about it is best. I appraoch scripture withthe consept that the Paraclete will guide me to an understanding of it.
I had to look up paraclete. Ok.

Mr 1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.
Mssing your point here.

As for what is done today, there are many aberrations such as infant baptism. However the adult baptisms that I have witnessed were testimonies to a changed life.
Infant baptism aberration - Agreed.
It makes sense that if you attend a church that believes as such, then this would be the only baptism you would witness. It would follow that if you attended a church that believed in Acts 2:38-39, all you would see are people getting baptized in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins.

If that were the case then the baptism of John would have been enough but Paul did not see it that way: Acts 19:4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus.
5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
So Paul is saying that baptism has the added dimension of believing in Jesus. Now the people did not get baptized in the name of Jesus in order to believe but because they did believe already.
Nor was anyone before Jesus's resurrection baptized in Jesus's name. Mark 16:16 said those who believe & are baptized will be saved. Separate items.
No one ever said baptism created belief. The teaching is belief, then baptism in Jesus's name, then saved. Belief in Jesus (not being saved first) is a pre-requisite for baptism.

If you are saying people actually physically die when they are baptised there must be a paucity of adherents left alive. Otherwise I believe the evidence points to death in this verse as being symbolical.
Romans 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
Neither symbolic, nor physical death. The symbolic 'purpose' for baptism that protestants repeat to death was never 'talked about that way' by those, such as Paul who would have made at least a single reference if they believed as protestants do today.

Are you saying that nothing physical is done in baptism? Really it is just the imagination of a person's mind? Or maybe God magically puts a person into the water?
No one denied the physical aspect in baptism, as there is no denying the physical aspect of confessing with one's mouth 'Jesus is Lord'. The burden of proof for protestants is to show that baptism 'is a work' according to the Bible.

People may claim that everyone is saved but scripture doesn't support that concept. Faith does not have to be mentioned since salvation is by grace through faith. However grace without faith is dead.
Neither faith, nor baptism have to be mentioned everytime. Since they are both stated for salvation/forgiveness of sins, they're both true.

However He was not saying that each was a requirement for salvation only that the result was a person's salvation and that can come simply from belief. Granted that there are some passages that could mislead a person a bit at first glance. However it does not matter as long as the person decides from the verse to believe then baptism is superfluous.
'Simply, Alone, Only, Just, etc.' is the piece that protestants add to the scriptures.

I said: However that is not the case. Baptism was originally and continues to be a public proclamation of repentance.
You said: Please tell me, says who?
That is exactly my point. Jesus has never said that there was a change in Baptism except in the "name" that a person is baptized in ie not John but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So if baptism is practised accrding to the way John intended for repentance, then that is authoritative baptism and all other baptisms are add ons.

I believe however a church practicing baptism based on Acts 2:38, 39 is not practicing original baptism but an add on through an imputation derived from the name of Jesus who has died for our sins. There are many imputations that derive from the name of Jesus including salvation. I believe if a church is just teaching people to repent without receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior, then they end up with people trying to be saved by works. I don't believe this was the intention of Jesus when He gave the commandment and for that reason more is said: Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
So the baptism is just the beginning of the process, since a disciple isn't made immediately. In the same denomination this was done two ways. In one baptism was dependent on taking baptism classes where the person is discipled. That didn't work for me because I didn't agree with all of the teaching. Another church was willing to baptize me upon an investgation of my faith (whether I had been discipled or not did I believe in the right things). Both of those notions were add-ons. A church should baptize simply on the basis of a person wanting to repent. Technically speaking, I should not have been baptized at all
because my repentence came so many years before and not by the church but by the spirit of God. However the Holy Spirit at work in me had me be baptized and I believe it is due to the fact that I had never made a public proclamation of my repentance.

There is no progression in the word "and." I believe you are putting the cart before the horse because no-one believes in Jesus without first repenting his sins. I believe a person who says he believes in Jesus and also believes in committing sins is a liar. Since baptism is a physical representation of spiritual repentence then baptism should come before salvation. However it didn't in my case because I went through the repentance without the baptism. My repentence came long before my belief in Jesus so I was not repenting in the name of Jesus but was repenting because God required it of me. However repentance did not save me but only put me in a frame of mind that would allow salvation to occur. Now don't get me wrong that I wasn't being saved. I believe God saved me from my sin at the moment that I called on Him to do so and having a mind to obey God would also save me to the extent I was able to keep from sin on my own so the salvation I am talking about the salvation of Jesus through an indwelling of the Holy Spirit which I believe is far better than the saving grace I already had.

I believe you are arguing from the null hypothesis without grounds for doing so. I believe you are saying that an actual spiritual death occurs at baptism. I can see that happening but I believe it is a rare occurrence. My granddaughters were baptized at an early age. One has mangaed to break most of the comandments so evidently baptism did not cause a death of the will to sin in her and the other one became a proclaimed atheist although she has now processed into a proclaimed agnostic. I was already dead to sin when I was baptized, so baptism did not change that or bring it to fruition. I believe sin died in me when I received Jesus as Lord and Savior. Sin did not die in me at repentence because my will could still be swayed even though my will in general was not to sin.

 

[e.r.m.]

Muffled,

I said: However that is not the case. Baptism was originally and continues to be a public proclamation of repentance.
You said: Please tell me, says who?
That is exactly my point. Jesus has never said that there was a change in Baptism except in the "name" that a person is baptized in ie not John but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So if baptism is practised according to the way John intended for repentance, then that is authoritative baptism and all other baptisms are add ons.
You haven't answered the question: "Says who?"
Neither Jesus, nor John ever said anything about a baptism as a "public proclamation of anything."
Oh, I know where you get this from! - Zwingli!

“Baptism is an initiatory sign or pledge initiating us to a lifelong mortification of the flesh and engaging or pledging us like the soldier at his enlistment.”

“Hence the meaning of the words ‘baptizing them’ is this: with this external sign you are to dedicate and pledge them to the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.”

Just as sometimes our modern tradition of a turkey 'centerpiece' is attributed to the thanksgiving feast in 1621, so is the reformation idea of public proclamation type baptism attributed 'retroactively' to the first century. Although no one back then ever spoke about baptism in those terms, this idea is forced 'into' the scriptures.

I believe however a church practicing baptism based on Acts 2:38, 39 is not practicing original baptism but an add on through an imputation derived from the name of Jesus who has died for our sins.
Since Jesus and Peter were the ones to add it, then of course.

There are many imputations that derive from the name of Jesus including salvation. I believe if a church is just teaching people to repent without receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior, then they end up with people trying to be saved by works.
Colosians 2:6 Refers to Accepting Jesus as Lord. Because the Bible says this, then it is Biblical, but accepting Jesus as "savior" is not Biblical.

I don't believe this was the intention of Jesus when He gave the commandment and for that reason more is said: Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
I believe a church practicing baptism based on Acts 2:38, 39 is Biblical.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Jesus and Peter both gave this significance to baptism.

So the baptism is just the beginning of the process, since a disciple isn't made immediately.
Who said it has to be immediate? Even many Baptist pastors today are now recognizing the need to give room for God to work in His own time to get a person ready to follow Jesus and to be saved, however that may be.

In the same denomination this was done two ways. In one baptism was dependent on taking baptism classes where the person is discipled. That didn't work for me because I didn't agree with all of the teaching. Another church was willing to baptize me upon an investgation of my faith (whether I had been discipled or not did I believe in the right things).
Would you re-baptize a catholic who was baptized as a baby without re-educating him according to the scriptures? I would hope not. With tremendous proliferation of different beliefs on baptism (They can't all be right), some evaluation and/or re-education is called for. I saw a youtube video where a baptist pastor says a person who got baptized for forgiveness of sins would have to be re-baptized "correctly". I don't share his beliefs on the purpose of baptism, but I sure respect his conviction that a non-Biblical baptism is an illegitimate baptism.


Both of those notions were add-ons. A church should baptize simply on the basis of a person wanting to repent.
I wouldn't ignore Jesus and Peter. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39.


Technically speaking, I should not have been baptized at all because my repentence came so many years before and not by the church but by the spirit of God.
That's how repentance is supposed to come, by the spirit of God, but it is still your responsibility to repent, that's why it is "commanded". Acts 3:19, Acts 17:30, Acts 2:38, followed by the command to be baptized. repentance, then baptism, A la Acts 2:38.


However the Holy Spirit at work in me had me be baptized
Baptism in Jesus name, the one that is commanded, is in water Acts 10:47-48


is in and I believe it is due to the fact that I had never made a public proclamation of my repentance.
That's ok, cause baptism was never associated Biblically with a public proclamation of your repentance.


There is no progression in the word "and." I believe you are putting the cart before the horse because no-one believes in Jesus without first repenting his sins.
I'll agree with repentance first. Mark 1:15 "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

I believe a person who says he believes in Jesus and also believes in committing sins is a liar.
Good point.

Since baptism is a physical representation of spiritual repentence
Book, chapter, and verse.


then baptism should come before salvation.
Yes, But not baptism, before repentance.
Repentance, then baptism, then salvation and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


However it didn't in my case because I went through the repentance without the baptism.
Bible says you're supposed to do both. You're taking upon yourself to exclude the latter. You don't have the authority to excuse "yourself" from it.


My repentence came long before my belief in Jesus so I was not repenting in the name of Jesus but was repenting because God required it of me.
Glad you repented.


However repentance did not save me but only put me in a frame of mind that would allow salvation to occur.
Not in and of itself because the Bible says repent AND be baptized for forgiveness of sins, not one or the other.

I believe you are arguing from the null hypothesis without grounds for doing so. I believe you are saying that an actual spiritual death occurs at baptism. I can see that happening but I believe it is a rare occurrence.
Romans 6:3-4. I cannot see it as a rare occurrence. It is by faith in God's word that it occurs at baptism.


My granddaughters were baptized at an early age. One has mangaed to break most of the comandments so evidently baptism did not cause a death of the will to sin in her and the other one became a proclaimed atheist although she has now processed into a proclaimed agnostic.
Sorry to hear that. I believe this is one reason why Jesus says in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples, baptizing them. And Luke 14:28-30 to estimate the costfirst, before making one decision to follow him. Mark 16:16 Believe and be baptized. And Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized. I don't know how early they got baptized, but it's supposed to happen at an age when they are competent to decide.

I was already dead to sin when I was baptized, so baptism did not change that or bring it to fruition.
And I accepted Moses as my personal savior (Sarcasm). One cannot be correct in saying that something happended if it conflicts with scripture, which leads me to repeat...

I believe sin died in me when I received Jesus as Lord and Savior.
...accepting Jesus as Savior is not Biblical.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Where does it say "...as savior"?

Sin did not die in me at repentence because my will could still be swayed even though my will in general was not to sin.
Jesus, Peter, and Paul said this could happen.

 

[sincerly]

(Muffled,) I believe sin died in me when I received Jesus as Lord and Savior.
...accepting Jesus as Savior is not Biblical.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Where does it say "...as savior"?

2Pet.1:1, "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2Pet.1:11, "For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
2Pet.1:14, "Knowing that shortly I must put off [this] my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

Jesus in John 13:14, If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. "

 

[e.r.m.]

2Pet.1:1, "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2Pet.1:11, "For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
2Pet.1:14, "Knowing that shortly I must put off [this] my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

Jesus in John 13:14, If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. "

I'm wondering if this is a pattern.
Once before, I corrected someone on the unBiblical act of "Receiving Jesus as savior." They also came back with scriptures saying that Jesus is savior and neglected the act of "Receiving Jesus as savior." I don't know why, I think the correction addressing the act was pretty clear.
John 1:12 does not say "To those who received him as savior..."

It was John Calvin and some guy named Bernard who first introduced the idea to the world of receiving Jesus as savior.
John Calvin:
"Hence, Bernard truly says, that, in the present day, a door of salvation is opened to us when we receive the gospel with our ears,..."
Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 154.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
2Pet.1:1, "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"
2Pet.1:11, "For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ".
2Pet.1:14, "Knowing that shortly I must put off [this] my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me".

Jesus in John 13:14, If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. "

I'm wondering if this is a pattern.
Once before, I corrected someone on the unBiblical act of "Receiving Jesus as savior." They also came back with scriptures saying that Jesus is savior and neglected the act of "Receiving Jesus as savior." I don't know why, I think the correction addressing the act was pretty clear.
John 1:12 does not say "To those who received him as savior..."

It was John Calvin and some guy named Bernard who first introduced the idea to the world of receiving Jesus as savior.
John Calvin:
"Hence, Bernard truly says, that, in the present day, a door of salvation is opened to us when we receive the gospel with our ears,..."
Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 154.

Pattern??? Yes, Jesus is the "Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world"(Promised). Rev.13:8 and 2Pet.1:20, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world" to be the redeemer(saviour of mankind).

Luke 19:9-10, "And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. "

1John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."
It is by Jesus' blood sacrifice that one is saved from the wrath of GOD.

John1:12-13 does say, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Only a few of those HE Came to "Received HIM as their Saviour", but there is the extension to the world's ending to ALL who "Believe." This was made manifest by Jesus in John 3:----"Ye must be "born again", and "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
That isn't believing in baptism--- which symbolized the Rebirth---but in the saving power of the Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ.