The parable of the talents

brotherofJared

Well-known member
First, I'd like to point out how underhanded it is to quote somebody and not give credit where credit is due. It is a tactic used by some of our critics who do not want to make it easy for someone to follow the argument backwards by using the links provided by this website.
Not in this case. Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text.
Of course there are many interpretations that when my give to passages in the scriptures. We see that amongst the interpretations that are critics use that seem to go across grain with the verse as it is written. It's almost as if it was written in code forcing us to seek the wisdom of men to understand them. Of course they cannot actually say what they say.
He then reaches this conclusion:
Of course we're just going to jump straight to the conclusion. We're not going to talk about how he came to his interpretation. Instead we're just going to refer to his conclusion.
"One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received."
It makes little sense to refer to the Bible for anything if we're just going to do or interpret it in accordance to the way we believe. Doesn't it make more sense that we might conform our beliefs to the way the Bible is actually saying it? What need we have of a Bible if we're just going to do what we believe is right? But this isn't the verse that strikes a cord with the need or requirement for baptism. Jesus Christ himself said that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they've been baptized. And it appears that that is exactly what the apostles taught. In fact it was so important to them that Paul refers to baptism for the Dead. Now, I wonder why it was that important to them.
Again, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19.
So we commenced to wrestle the scriptures. That's up to you. But I don't understand why it would be so difficult to accept that baptism is just part of the things that we have to do to be saved in the kingdom of God. It's not that big of a deal. But you have managed to make a mountain out of this molehill and insist that it's not necessary.

I would think that those who are interested in salvation would find out for themselves just how important it is. If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me. If one is to follow Jesus then I would think that they should get baptized.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Works-salvationists just cannot get it through their heads that James is discussing the evidence of faith
Faith alone salvationists just cannot get it to their heads that James is saying that without those words there is no faith.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Why did Jesus marvel? Because of the centurion's great faith. To Jesus faith was the most important quality.
Even in the centurion that faith could not exist except by his actions. Jesus marvelled because the Jews who should have known didn't and the one who shouldn't have known did. This is yet another case where salvation comes to those who do and not simply claim they believe. Again, those who don't do what they say they believe, don't believe. The truth is in the details.
This scripture is in direct confrontation to your doctrine of works.
The scripture is in direct support of the value of works which gives us access to God's grace as to our personal salvation.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
dberrie said---

Acts 2:38---King James Version
38 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.

So--how could faith alone theology be true--and that testimony also be true? God's salvational grace for our obedience to Jesus Christ?

You did not answer my question from post #45 and obviously everything that I explained to you in post #45 just went right over your head.

Answering any post won't change the fact Acts2:38 has God giving His grace to them which repent and are baptized.

Anathema to faith alone theology.

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

MMDAN

Active member
Jesus Christ himself said that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they've been baptized.
Where did Jesus say that whoever is not water baptized will not be saved? If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And it appears that that is exactly what the apostles taught.
Where did any of the apostles specifically teach that whoever is not water baptized will not be saved?
In fact it was so important to them that Paul refers to baptism for the Dead. Now, I wonder why it was that important to them.
But I don't understand why it would be so difficult to accept that baptism is just part of the things that we have to do to be saved in the kingdom of God. It's not that big of a deal. But you have managed to make a mountain out of this molehill and insist that it's not necessary.
Salvation is by grace through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9) To believe anything else is to miss salvation. It's a big deal.
I would think that those who are interested in salvation would find out for themselves just how important it is. If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me. If one is to follow Jesus then I would think that they should get baptized.
Baptism put it in it's proper place, subsequent to salvation, as all works must be. This does not remove acts of obedience/good works from the Christian life, it just puts them in their proper place, subsequent to regeneration and salvation. I was water baptized and I could not wait to receive water baptism AFTER I believed in Christ unto salvation, just as these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47.
 

MMDAN

Active member
dberrie said---

Acts 2:38---King James Version
38 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.
Once again, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

So--how could faith alone theology be true--and that testimony also be true? God's salvational grace for our obedience to Jesus Christ?
By properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine, I just showed you how faith alone theology is true.
Romans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, (faith plus what? faith plus nothing/faith alone) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2. through whom also we have access by faith into this grace (faith plus what? faith plus nothing/faith alone) in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Answering any post won't change the fact Acts2:38 has God giving His grace to them which repent and are baptized.
Mormon eisegesis. It's faith in Jesus Christ (implied in genuine repentance) in which grace is received.

Luke 24:47 - and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 5:31 - Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life." This was prior to receiving water baptism. (Acts 10:43-47)

Anathema to faith alone theology.
Now you sound like a Roman Catholic.


It's actually anathema to a perverted "works based" false gospel. (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Romans 4:5-6; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9)

Acts 22:16---King James Version
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same SENSE Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5) Greek scholar AT Robertson points out, baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, but it does not literally wash away our sins, contrary to your conclusion.

In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism (Acts 10:43-47). In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (v. 15), although the apostle had not yet been baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear [His] name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15); such a commission is not God’s portion for one still lost and under wrath. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO. In John 9:31, we read - "We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will." Well, Paul was a worshipper of God, calling Christ "Lord" and then setting out to do His will. God accepted Paul’s prayers before his baptism. (Acts 9:11)

All of these things characterized Paul before he was baptized. So, Paul had already believed in Christ unto salvation when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight. (Acts 9:17) It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was water baptized. (Acts 9:18) Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism. *No scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

*HERMENEUTICS*
 

MMDAN

Active member
Faith alone salvationists just cannot get it to their heads that James is saying that without those works there is no faith.
Does a dead faith produce works in order to become a living faith or BECAUSE it's a living faith?
Does a dead fruit tree produce fruit in order to become a living tree or BECAUSE it's a living tree?

Something that is dead cannot produce anything. Common sense 101.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Only if one claims it's a faith without works.

So--you didn't answer my question:--do you feel the term "faith" is a reference to a faith with works--or a faith without works?

Cisco--the faith alone claim one inherits eternal life--to the exclusion of all acts of obedience to Jesus Christ.

IOW--what the Biblical text refers to as a faith which is dead--the faith alone claim is a saving faith.

James 2:19-26--King James Version
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Devils are not self-sufficient beings but must rely on God for their continued existence. Which is what the word believe means, to rely on, cling to, trust in. But we are not saved by believing in God. Mankind is saved by believing in Jesus Christ and His saving grace (free gift). And Jesus did not die for devils.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
You must state these last verses in their context:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

To a born again christian with the heart of God turning away a brother or sister in need is not an option. And the act of obedience has been performed before the act event is even completed. That is because God looks at the heart and knows what you will do before you even do it. Just as Jesus knew Peter would deny Him three times. God knew that Abraham had the faith to offer up his son because Abraham had the faith in God to resurrect his son. And this stands as a type of God offering His only Son for our sins.

Proponents of the work theme will always turn to this scripture to support their work doctrine which was written by James the brother of Jesus who was never selected by Jesus to be an apostle but became a pillar because of his relationship to Jesus. You will note that this letter is written to the 12 tribes scattered abroad which indicates that the author was still under that impression that only Jews were saved. Martin Luther regarded this document as stubble. And I don't believe that it can be used as a counter to a full fledged apostle selected by Jesus.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Once again, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first.

LOL! That seems like a case of selective exclusion to me. Did you feel compelled to do that to save your theology?

Once again--where I come from--the conjunction "and"--- connects two or more things:

Acts 2:38---King James Version
38 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.

Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins,"

So--editing what Peter really said will save your theology?

the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

You are right--there are no parenthesis in Acts2:38--and for a reason:

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

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)

But not before them working righteousness:

Acts 10:34-35---King James Version
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Dan--one does not need to show water baptism as the only act which connects our choices with God's grace--it's showing ANY acts of obedience to Jesus Christ with His grace--where faith alone theology is violated, as they exclude ALL acts of obedience to Jesus Christ in obtaining eternal life.

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

That only connects doing righteousness, repentance, belief, etc--as integral components to one another.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Then why do you and dberrie2020 keep saying that we are saved by faith AND works and not by faith in Christ alone?

Dan--just a point here. That is a lie. dberrie has never claimed one is "saved by faith and works". If you disagree--please give a cite where I specifically made that claim.

My claim is one is saved by God's grace--which goes to them which obey God. I don't have any belief one is saved by either faith or works.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Does a dead faith produce works in order to become a living faith or BECAUSE it's a living faith?
Does a dead fruit tree produce fruit in order to become a living tree or BECAUSE it's a living tree?

I believe that is a false dichotomy, and this is why:

works are a qualifying factor to dead faith for a specific reason, IE--it cannot save. It's dead to that specific account.

Just as trees in an apple orchid not producing apples--would be a "dead" orchid to an owner--because it could not be profitable to the owner.

There is a specific application there.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Devils are not self-sufficient beings but must rely on God for their continued existence. Which is what the word believe means, to rely on, cling to, trust in. But we are not saved by believing in God. Mankind is saved by believing in Jesus Christ and His saving grace (free gift). And Jesus did not die for devils.

I'm not sure how that answers my question to you--IE--

dberrie2020 said:So--you didn't answer my question:--do you feel the term "faith" is a reference to a faith with works--or a faith without works?

Again--how do you respond to that?

You must state these last verses in their context:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

To a born again christian with the heart of God turning away a brother or sister in need is not an option. And the act of obedience has been performed before the act event is even completed. That is because God looks at the heart and knows what you will do before you even do it. Just as Jesus knew Peter would deny Him three times. God knew that Abraham had the faith to offer up his son because Abraham had the faith in God to resurrect his son. And this stands as a type of God offering His only Son for our sins.

Are you referring to this Abraham?

Genesis 26:4-5---King James Version
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Proponents of the work theme will always turn to this scripture to support their work doctrine which was written by James the brother of Jesus who was never selected by Jesus to be an apostle but became a pillar because of his relationship to Jesus. You will note that this letter is written to the 12 tribes scattered abroad which indicates that the author was still under that impression that only Jews were saved. Martin Luther regarded this document as stubble.

Bingo!!!!! Martin Luther did indeed regard James as an "epistle of straw". Martin Luther also tried to have James removed from the canon. That should tell you something.
 
Top