Was Matt.28:19 Tampered With ?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Ah... that's the rub.

If we don't have an agreement as to what constitutes a "work" as described by the New Testament then we're just going to end up talking in circles.

As a solid UPCer who was very sympathetic to the idea of baptism being for the remission of sins, I was quite dogmatic in insisting that every occurrence of the word "work" or "works" in the writings of Paul and the NT in general referred specifically to the "works" that were necessary for obedience to the 613 commandments of the Law of Moses. Thus, baptism couldn't possibly be seen as a "work" (nor the holiness standards, etc.).

But this simplistic approach didn't end up serving me very well; for Paul himself will use examples of activity that have nothing to do with the Law of Moses and label them "works" (Romans 4:1-10).

In Romans 4, the "works" that "did not" justify Abraham involved the covenant of circumcision. Though this was repeated as one of the Laws of Moses, it was in use for centuries before Moses was even born. In any event, Paul's point is that NO KIND OF "WORK" at all justified Abraham. God had already accounted Abraham righteous before He gave Abe any command at all other than "Leave your father's house..."

We as Christians are given the responsibility for carrying out a large number of commands. Our response to these requirements can generally be called "work." When James (and Paul even) exhorted the believers to do "good works" - they were not advocating that they follow the Law of Moses (James 2). Therefore, it is evident that the idea of "works" in the NT goes beyond the simple notion of the Law of Moses. It encompasses much more.

And... back to my point... none of these works can save us. Moreover, it could be said that they don't even mark us in any way as being particularly "good" servants if we obey them (Luke 17:10).

Thus, if we can "earn" or prove that we have "deserved" salvation because of the fact that we figured out a "better" way to be baptized, or because we can demonstrate that we pray in a manner that we believe to be "more supernatural" than the Baptist folks, then we are falling into the trap that Romans 11:5-6, warns us about. The same thing with the holiness standards.

And isn't that the gist of the message of the UPC today and other "3 Stepper" controlled bodies? They repeatedly proclaim themselves to possess a standard of salvation that will save them, but not other Christians. They repeatedly state that it's either "Acts 2:38 or hell." They repeatedly refuse to accept other Christians as brethren in any degree.

All of this clearly indicates that they do not accept the cross as the basis of our salvation nor do they feel that "faith and grace" (as you put it) are sufficient for the believer to be saved.

They demand that we do some sort of "work" in order to be saved. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

So back to my slippery slope comment...if a work is whatever we can do then faith in Him and repentance are works. Do you therefore assert we are saved before we put our faith in Christ and or repent of our sins?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

2 things. I said they don't really believe this is a work that saves, but an act of obedience.

Mizzie and P.O. both have chided with me for my statements that a person is saved whether he has been baptized or not, and whether he has been baptized "correctly" or not.

These are just two examples. The other examples are legion. Thus, I humbly disagree. The "3 Steppers" advocate baptism as the means for receiving the "remission of sins" (emphatically).

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again the question is, what is works? That he is sent to preach the gospel does not mean baptims is not part of the gospel message.

In 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul clearly tells us what he was called to preach:

Verse 17: "the gospel..." And just what is this "gospel?"
Verse 18: "the preaching of the cross..."

Originally Posted by Praxeas

See his message to the disciples of John.

Here (Acts 19) Paul doesn't ask the disciples, "Have you believed and been saved?" He asks these disciples that he apparent presumed to be saved already, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"

The whole exchange is NOT an attempt by Paul to get these disciples "saved." It's an inquiry to find out if these believers are walking in the power of the Holy Ghost.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

People read too much into what Paul said or did not say.

Would assuming that Paul was trying to get the disciples of John in Acts 19, "saved" be an example of this?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The point he was making in context seems to be those that say "I am of Apollos" etc etc. Why? baptism was seen as an act of disciplship..which is why we baptise in Jesus name, because we are making them disciples to Him not to ourselves. Baptism was a common practice as part of the church. That Paul said he was not sent to baptise doesn't annul baptism as an important practice.

You see, when you advocate your own positions you do a great job and I agree with you. When you take up for the "3 Stepper" way you kind of wobble a bit.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So back to my slippery slope comment...if a work is whatever we can do then faith in Him and repentance are works. Do you therefore assert we are saved before we put our faith in Christ and or repent of our sins?

Except that "faith" and "belief" are always contrasted with "works." Thus, theologically at least, they are the antithesis of "works."

We need a better definition for "works" within the context of NT theology than saying, "something that you can do." With that definition in place, a "work" is simply any verb. Even "getting out of doing any work" becomes "working."

I just opened the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and read the two articles: "Work" and "Works." I'm rather disappointed that they didn't make a stab at any kind of pithy definition.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Mizzie and P.O. both have chided with me for my statements that a person is saved whether he has been baptized or not, and whether he has been baptized "correctly" or not.


These are just two examples. The other examples are legion. Thus, I humbly disagree. The "3 Steppers" advocate baptism as the means for receiving the "remission of sins" (emphatically).

I never said they didn't. Now Im confused. What I have been speaking of is how some argue baptism is not work because of how work is defined

In 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul clearly tells us what he was called to preach:

Verse 17: "the gospel..." And just what is this "gospel?"
Verse 18: "the preaching of the cross..."

Again, since I didn't say he was called to preach anything else..im confused by your responses to my post

Here (Acts 19) Paul doesn't ask the disciples, "Have you believed and been saved?" He asks these disciples that he apparent presumed to be saved already, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"

The whole exchange is NOT an attempt by Paul to get these disciples "saved." It's an inquiry to find out if these believers are walking in the power of the Holy Ghost.

Yes but he finds out they were not really followers of Christ but followers of John and thus he says they were to believe on Jesus and the Paul baptized them. See Paul never said "God did not call me to preach baptism"...he said "God did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel"

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The whole issue was not Paul afraid people would wrongly think baptism was essential. It was about division and those who sought to become followers of individuals, especially the ones that baptized them

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Would assuming that Paul was trying to get the disciples of John in Acts 19, "saved" be an example of this?

I think you assume he wasn't. His question was a query, but upon hearing the answer he tells them

Act 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Maybe Paul wasn't alone and someone else baptized them, but it seems that the only one there was Paul so it is rational to assume Paul baptized these

You see, when you advocate your own positions you do a great job and I agree with you. When you take up for the "3 Stepper" way you kind of wobble a bit.

I think the only real argument 3 steppers can make is that baptism is not a work and for the most part I can agree, even if not being a 3 stepper, that baptism is not a work.

Here is my thought. If baptism is a work because it is something we can do, then so is faith and repentance.

IF it is argued faith and repentance is not a work then it will be hard to argue baptism IS a work.

If then it is argued faith and repentance are works, then we are on that slippery slope I spoke of towards believing salvation occurs before faith or repentance simply by God's predetermined will.

And a lot of 1 steppers, even non Apostolics, believe strongly that in order to be saved one MUST put their faith in Him and repent

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Except that "faith" and "belief" are always contrasted with "works." Thus, theologically at least, they are the antithesis of "works."

Right, yet faith...are we not commanded to believe on Him? Is that not something we do?

We need a better definition for "works" within the context of NT theology than saying, "something that you can do." With that definition in place, a "work" is simply any verb. Even "getting out of doing any work" becomes "working."

I agree lol.

I just opened the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and read the two articles: "Work" and "Works." I'm rather disappointed that they didn't make a stab at any kind of pithy definition.

Maybe I'll take a look too. I have a lot of dictionary aids and commentaries. The standard argument I hear though is "works are anything we can do"

If I were a 3 stepper I'd argue "works" are anything you can do apart from what is commanded to obey as part of the New Covenant, which works with the argument that "works" refer to the works of the law. In most or many cases they actually do in the context. But other contexts I think there is no reference to the law. If that is the case then works can also refer to anything we try to do on our own that we invent on our own.

Cain's sacrifice displeased God...Abel's was accepted. Maybe God told them what sort of sacrifice was acceptable and Cain thought he could please God his own way. Maybe in the same way some can think they can be saved by doing good deeds constantly, feed the poor etc etc...which are never really connected with having sins forgiven, becoming saved or occur in the same context as a gospel message preached and upon conversion the hearers are immediately baptized.

Since I don't believe sins are forgiven at baptism, I view baptism as the immediate response to believing in Christ and repenting. At the same time I believe in baptism so strongly I have 3step relapses at times

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I never said they didn't. Now Im confused. What I have been speaking of is how some argue baptism is not work because of how work is defined

Again, since I didn't say he was called to preach anything else..im confused by your responses to my post

It was a subtle point, and I realize that I'm not really arguing with you about your own stance, but the stance of a "third party." I'll move on for now.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes but he finds out they were not really followers of Christ but followers of John and thus he says they were to believe on Jesus and the Paul baptized them. See Paul never said "God did not call me to preach baptism"...he said "God did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel"

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The whole issue was not Paul afraid people would wrongly think baptism was essential. It was about division and those who sought to become followers of individuals, especially the ones that baptized them

Yes, the problem was division in Corinth. And tody, that's exactly what the "3 Steppers" seek to do: To divide the body of Christ. Their methodology isn't the same as some of the Corinthians and the there isn't a one-to-one correlation between the two groups here. However, as the Corinthians (at least some of them) were dividing up along the lines of who was baptized by whom; meanwhile, the "3 Steppers" are dividing up along the lines of who was baptized how.

The details are not the same, but the error really ends up being quite similar. Spiritual pride, exclusivity, isolation, sectarianism. The whole thing actually weakens what we could be if we were all together in Christ.

Since we don't have any Scripture that really identifies water baptism as "the Gospel" or even as a "part of the Gospel" - the "3 Stepper" lens that we all wore to some degree or another has to be unfogged.

In 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul tells us what the Gospel is. To "preach the Gospel" means to "preach the cross."

See also 1 Corinthians 1:23-24, 1 Corinthians 2:2; Luke 24:46-47 (which does not say anything about baptism - see the earlier discussion); Acts 10:39-43; Galatians 3:1; Galatians 6:14 and many others.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I think you assume he wasn't. His question was a query, but upon hearing the answer he tells them

Act 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Maybe Paul wasn't alone and someone else baptized them, but it seems that the only one there was Paul so it is rational to assume Paul baptized these

Who baptized them is immaterial. However, they were "believers" when Paul (and whoever else) stumbled upon them. Since Paul had to give a fuller explanation concerning just Who the Messiah is, it is reasonable to assume that they probably had missed out on the whole Gospel story as it was acted out in Jerusalem several years prior.

In any event - these disciples already had "the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77 and Luke 3:3). Thus, the point concerning their salvation and their justification was already satisfied by their earlier repentance.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I think the only real argument 3 steppers can make is that baptism is not a work and for the most part I can agree, even if not being a 3 stepper, that baptism is not a work.

Here is my thought. If baptism is a work because it is something we can do, then so is faith and repentance.

IF it is argued faith and repentance is not a work then it will be hard to argue baptism IS a work.

If then it is argued faith and repentance are works, then we are on that slippery slope I spoke of towards believing salvation occurs before faith or repentance simply by God's predetermined will.

And a lot of 1 steppers, even non Apostolics, believe strongly that in order to be saved one MUST put their faith in Him and repent

Here again what we see is a failing in our terminology. A "work" in the Pauline sense and in the context of the teachings of the NT as whole is NOT synonymous with being "a verb."

Not just any verb is a "work." "Works" in the NT sense deal with the things that people do to make themselves righteous. This is how people attempt to "justify themselves."

But, Jesus Christ is the justifier of men - and He does this without any "works" on our part. It is His free gift - the gift of salvation. If we had to do something to earn it then it would no longer be a gift. All we have to do is to believe and receive.

I know, "believe" and "receive" are verbs too. But they are not "works" in the NT sense. (Romans 11:5-6 NKJV).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Right, yet faith...are we not commanded to believe on Him? Is that not something we do?


I agree lol.


Maybe I'll take a look too. I have a lot of dictionary aids and commentaries. The standard argument I hear though is "works are anything we can do"

If I were a 3 stepper I'd argue "works" are anything you can do apart from what is commanded to obey as part of the New Covenant, which works with the argument that "works" refer to the works of the law. In most or many cases they actually do in the context. But other contexts I think there is no reference to the law. If that is the case then works can also refer to anything we try to do on our own that we invent on our own.

Cain's sacrifice displeased God...Abel's was accepted. Maybe God told them what sort of sacrifice was acceptable and Cain thought he could please God his own way. Maybe in the same way some can think they can be saved by doing good deeds constantly, feed the poor etc etc...which are never really connected with having sins forgiven, becoming saved or occur in the same context as a gospel message preached and upon conversion the hearers are immediately baptized.

Since I don't believe sins are forgiven at baptism, I view baptism as the immediate response to believing in Christ and repenting. At the same time I believe in baptism so strongly I have 3step relapses at times

That's the approach I used to take. "Well, if baptism is a 'work' so is 'believing!'"

But, I think I was missing an important distinction that the Bible was trying to point out to me. "Works" in the NT sense is NOT the same thing as "a verb."

The "works" are verbs, but there are other verbs that are not classified as "works" in the NT - like "believe" and "receive." Perhaps a Venn Diagram is in order?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yes, the problem was division in Corinth. And tody, that's exactly what the "3 Steppers" seek to do: To divide the body of Christ.

That's a conclusion that seeks to judge their motive and it is a sweeping generalization. Most would say they just seek the truth and to obey Him. While at the same time if it was purely to divide, they'd probably never be concerned with others not obeying what they believe is the truth and never reach out with this message to others

Their methodology isn't the same as some of the Corinthians and the there isn't a one-to-one correlation between the two groups here. However, as the Corinthians (at least some of them) were dividing up along the lines of who was baptized by whom; meanwhile, the "3 Steppers" are dividing up along the lines of who was baptized how.

Again this seeks to judge motive or intent and I think it can be seen the other way. However the real point was that though Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel, the context shows his point wasn't to say "baptism is not important" and in fact he did baptize. Clearly preaching the gospel takes preeminence for Paul said

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

The details are not the same, but the error really ends up being quite similar. Spiritual pride, exclusivity, isolation, sectarianism. The whole thing actually weakens what we could be if we were all together in Christ.

Again this is a sweeping generalization and a conclusion on their intent. I can't know their intent, every one of them, unless they told me so I am sure you can't either. Second, all groups divide. Trinitarians are the ones that labeled all non-Trinitarians as a cult and not part of the body of Christ. It's a common practice. 1 Steppers around here have been very vocal in their sectarianism vs the 3 steppers. However, again that is all beside the point. We were discussing Paul, not the Corinthians, and the issue of what 3 steppers believe about baptism, not what they believe about themselves or what you or I believe about them morally. Is Baptism a work? You brought up Paul's statement in response to that issue in order to suggest Paul did not see it as a work or an act of obedience one needed to be saved,right?

Since we don't have any Scripture that really identifies water baptism as "the Gospel" or even as a "part of the Gospel" - the "3 Stepper" lens that we all wore to some degree or another has to be unfogged.

Directly? I think they would appeal to the fact that when the gospel is preached in Acts baptism is always included somehow, if not verbatim in the preaching. Also compare each time the gospel is preached in Acts. It's never just a message on the cross. Peter's message was interrupted and upon seeing the Gentiles had not only accepted the word but were filled with the Spirit, concludes his message by commanding them to be baptized.

Was repentance ever a part of the gospel? Again we are back to that slippery slope where by hyper Calvinists claim you are saved before repentance and thus our 1 stepping buddies around here are wrong too.

Paul said 1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

But he did not say that was all he preached. Surely he preached Christ resurrected too, right?

Jesus proclaimed the gospel, but we read he did not go around constantly preaching the cross. In fact he rarely mentioned his death.

The Apostles, before Jesus told the of his impending death, were preaching the gospel

Preaching the gospel is connected with making disciples
Act 14:21 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,

So is baptism
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Peters gospel includes not only the cross but the resurrection and a few other things about Christ. Baptism may not be "The gospel" but in many of these accounts it can be seen to be part of preaching the gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul tells us what the Gospel is. To "preach the Gospel" means to "preach the cross."

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

This does not say the gospel is only the cross. The cross is included
Act 17:18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this babbler wish to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.

The gospel is not "you must be baptized". The gospel is not even "You must repent" or even "You must believe", but these are all part of preaching a gospel message. At the end of preaching each gospel, Peter commanded them to be baptized and repent. In the case of the Gentiles it was probably obvious they were repented already.

Here is an example.

Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Act 3:16 And his name--by faith in his name--has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
Act 3:17 "And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
Act 3:18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.
Act 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,
Act 3:20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,
Act 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.
Act 3:22 Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.
Act 3:23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.'
Act 3:24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.
Act 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'
Act 3:26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness."

In there is "The gospel", included in preaching "The Gospel" is the command to repent.

[Praxeas]

See also 1 Corinthians 1:23-24, 1 Corinthians 2:2; Luke 24:46-47 (which does not say anything about baptism - see the earlier discussion); Acts 10:39-43; Galatians 3:1; Galatians 6:14 and many others.

See above :-)

Who baptized them is immaterial. However, they were "believers" when Paul (and whoever else) stumbled upon them. Since Paul had to give a fuller explanation concerning just Who the Messiah is, it is reasonable to assume that they probably had missed out on the whole Gospel story as it was acted out in Jerusalem several years prior.

Who baptized the is material. You made it a issue to point out Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel, yet he DID baptize. This went to the point you made about 1Cor 1. He did infact baptize people, after he preached the gospel. There is no indication in this text they were believes. They were "certain disciples"...Apparently they run into these followers of John from time to time (see Apollos). So his question was a query to ascertain their discipleship.

Why even ask them that question? Why not just assume they had received the Spirit since they are saved believers?

When they responded no, his next question was about baptism. See he found disciples alright, but they were disciples of John. Whether or not they have converted to Christ is not revealed by this scripture.

So it's an assumption they were already saved. Regardless Paul preaches
Act 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Question:Why were they baptized upon hearing that one sentence? I can suggest some reasons. One is Luke doesn't record everything all the time, but infact condenses what is preached. Or, perhaps, they understood back then what it meant to be someone's disciple and to believe. Upon being told they were to believe on Jesus, the immediate action was to be baptized in Jesus name "making disciples of all nations, baptizing them..."

In any event - these disciples already had "the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77 and Luke 3:3). Thus, the point concerning their salvation and their justification was already satisfied by their earlier repentance.

If John's baptism truly remits sins why would anyone need Christ to die on the cross for them? Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. John prepared the way for the Lamb of God. This baptism was a baptism with a view towards Christ's resurrection. They were to come to the baptism and it was a sign they had repented

Mat 3:7 But seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said to them, O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance;
Mat 3:9 and do not think to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Mat 3:10 And now also, the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water to repentance. But He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire;
Mat 3:12 whose fan is in His hand, and He will cleanse His floor and gather His wheat into the storehouse; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Even Jesus was baptized by John, did he need a remission of sins?

Here again what we see is a failing in our terminology. A "work" in the Pauline sense and in the context of the teachings of the NT as whole is NOT synonymous with being "a verb."

Not just any verb is a "work." "Works" in the NT sense deal with the things that people do to make themselves righteous. This is how people attempt to "justify themselves."

Then I can see how baptism would NOT be a work. People being baptized do so because they were commanded. They "obey from the heart" Rm 6:
17, rather than seeing to justify themselves. In fact they believe God, even in baptism, is the one that justifies them because of their faith

But, Jesus Christ is the justifier of men - and He does this without any "works" on our part. It is His free gift - the gift of salvation. If we had to do something to earn it then it would no longer be a gift. All we have to do is to believe and receive.

Exactly. We still have a problem then of how to define works. And infact you said a work is things that people do.....that makes works still a verb

I know, "believe" and "receive" are verbs too. But they are not "works" in the NT sense. (Romans 11:5-6 NKJV).

What is the NT sense of works? If it is merely things we can do ourselves to justify ourselves then that could mean baptism is not a work.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

That's the approach I used to take. "Well, if baptism is a 'work' so is 'believing!'"

But, I think I was missing an important distinction that the Bible was trying to point out to me. "Works" in the NT sense is NOT the same thing as "a verb."

The "works" are verbs, but there are other verbs that are not classified as "works" in the NT - like "believe" and "receive." Perhaps a Venn Diagram is in order?

If I am understanding this right, then what we need in scriptures is a list of what verbs constitute a work...and I don't see baptism being called a work. And surely any 3 stepper has good evidence (though arguable) that baptism is connected with salvation just as believe is...

Why? Obey is a verb too

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to our God that you were the slaves of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

Act 6:7 And the Word of God was increasing. And the number of the disciples in Jerusalem was multiplying exceedingly; even a great crowd of the priests obeyed the faith.

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to him whom you obey; whether it is of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness.

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified
Gal 3:2 This only I would learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now perfect yourself in the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain, if indeed it is even in vain?
Gal 3:5 Then He supplying the Spirit to you and working powerful works in you, is it by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?

2Th 1:8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Heb 5:9 And being perfected, He became the Author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him,

Thus 3Steps would argue baptism is not a work, but is obedience to the command and is part of becoming a disciple of Christ.