Home » Posts tagged 'belief'

Tag Archives: belief

Explaining Belief

In my experience, which includes a very large sample size over several decades now, people can understand a biblical explanation of belief. I say to a person, “Jesus did everything that needed to be done for you to be saved, but how do you receive the benefits of what He did? Scripture shows only one way and that is, you must believe in Jesus Christ.”

Many will and do say that they believe in Jesus Christ. A majority of Americans will say they believe in Jesus Christ, when asked. Yet, “What does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?” First though, it is true that you must believe in Jesus Christ. Scripture teaches this requirement, “believe in Jesus Christ,” and I could go for thirty plus minutes showing verses that teach that.

What It’s Not

Before I explain what it means to believe in Jesus Christ, I make this point: “It is by belief in Jesus Christ, and not by works.” To understand belief in Jesus Christ, the evangelist must contrast belief from works, which scripture does all over the place. Belief and works are mutually exclusive. You are either saved by believing or by working, not both. If it’s works, then someone must live a perfect life, which he can’t. Someone will not understand belief in Jesus Christ unless he understands the relationship of works to belief.

Once I eliminate works as an option, I will ask again, “What does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?” Not only is belief not works, but it is also not mere intellectual assent to facts, like putting a check in a box. This means that neither is it mindless repetition of words with or after someone, simply saying, “I believe in Jesus Christ.”

Aspects of Belief

When I explain belief in Jesus Christ, I don’t go into a long doctrinal dissertation, proving that belief is both intellectual, emotional, and volitional. It is those three, and you can prove that with various passages for each of those aspects. This is also the history of Christian doctrine of salvation. It is said, belief is, the Latin, notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Notitia is the knowledge, assensus is the volition or commitment, and fiducia is the trust or reliance. All three go hand in hand, not to be separated from one another, like truth and love go together.

As you read this, you might think, “You’re making this too hard. What about ‘God’s simple plan of salvation?'” Scripture doesn’t say salvation is simple. I’m not saying it isn’t. I think it is, but it isn’t less than what scripture says that it is. The evangelist should not leave out something indispensable to a scriptural understanding.

Scriptural Requirement for True Belief

The Bible does say that there is a belief that does not save. This is quite common that someone falls short of a scriptural requirement for true belief in Jesus Christ. I say that men purposefully leave out the hard part, the least popular aspects that are the biggest reason for not getting a desired response.

Imagine this: “They’re not going to like this about Jesus Christ, so I’m not going to say it.” What’s not to like about Jesus Christ? People are not saved by believing in a Jesus that’s just acceptable to them. He’s got to be who He is. Another aspect to the object of faith is the Deity of Jesus Christ. Jesus is God.

Deity of Christ

Usually when I explain the Deity of Christ, I do it at the point that I say, “Jesus died for you” or “Jesus paid the penalty for your sins.” I say, “Let’s say that I wanted to die for you, and I think I would, but my death wouldn’t do anything for you — it couldn’t save you. Why? Because I’m a sinner. I deserve the penalty for sin myself. I can’t pay for yours, because I deserve my own.”

Well, who could pay the penalty for sin? A perfect person. A sinless person. Who could do that? What man could do that? Only Jesus Christ, because He is God. He is sinless, because He is God.

I briefly explain the Trinity at this point in the conversation and quote or go to verses on Jesus’ Deity. If someone does not believe that Jesus is God, then He does not believe in Jesus Christ. I include with that modalists, like the apostolics. They have not the doctrine of Christ, so they have not God (2 John 1:9). An evangelist must go much deeper and further on this subject if he is talking to a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon, people like that.

Even if you are talking to a Hindu, you’ve got to differentiate a true belief in Jesus as God and the Hindu version that puts Jesus on the shelf with other gods. The true identity of Jesus Christ is that He is God. Again, saving belief must have the proper object and part of that is that Jesus is God.

More to Come

Baptismal Regeneration: Acts 22:16

May 22, 2023 / Leave a comment

Requiring Baptism for Salvation

Definition and Denominations

“Baptismal Regeneration” in its definition at Wikipedia says:

Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican churches, and other Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it. Etymologically, the term means “being born again” (regeneration, or rebirth) “through baptism” (baptismal).

It’s more than that. You will find the Church of Christ, the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, LDS, and Charismatics such as Apostolics who also require water baptism for salvation. Where I live, the biggest denomination is the “Christian Church,” which believe this.

Hermeneutic

A certain wrong hermeneutic undergirds or produces baptismal regeneration, using a few proof texts. Instead of looking at all of the New Testament and understanding each verse within the whole, it conforms the whole to a few select verses. I will examine those verses. Those few verses don’t overturn what the New Testament teaches about salvation. They don’t include baptism as a requirement for justification. I will analyze what they do say, since men use them to buttress their false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Versus Belief Alone by Grace Alone

Many times the Bible says something like John the Baptist said in John 3:36.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

You don’t read any baptism in there. Forty times the Bible says, “believeth/believed in/on him/Jesus/the Son/me/thee,” as the sole condition for salvation.

Scripture expresses many other faith alone statements. The Ethiopian in Acts 8:37 said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Mark 1:15 says, “believe the gospel.” John 20:31 says, “Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through His name.” John 13:19 says, “ye may believe that I am he.” This is what the Bible teaches for salvation. Those verses mirror Ephesians 2:8-9:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

As much as verses teach faith alone for salvation, there are also many many that teach salvation not by works.

Adding a Work or Works

Baptism is not an incidental, non-affecting addition to grace or faith. It is akin to the addition of the one work or ritual of circumcision, which Paul addresses in Galatians 5. By adding this single work or ritual, “Christ shall profit you nothing” (v. 2). You become “a debtor to do the whole law” (v. 3). And, “Christ is become of no effect unto you” (v. 4). Those adding baptism almost always add other works and then depend on their works to stay saved. This is perverting the gospel.

Proof Texts

What I’m saying again here is that baptismal regeneration does not depend on what the New Testament teaches about salvation, but on proof texts that adherents use to force this doctrine on the Bible. I will deal with five verses, not necessarily in any order: Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38,1 Peter 3:21, and John 3:5. In the end, I will give more evidence against baptismal regeneration [Read the book by Thomas Ross against baptismal regeneration, see his debate on the subject at these links]. My prime goal here was to examine these proof texts.

Acts 22:16

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Post Conversion Baptism

At face value alone, it seems possible that Acts 22:16 says baptism washes away sins or at least precedes the washing away of sins. The verse itself rests within the conversion testimony of Paul to a hostile audience in Jerusalem, many years after his salvation. In the first telling of Paul’s salvation, his conversion and then reception of the Holy Spirit far preceded the command and occurrence of baptism (Acts 9:1-17). Every time he recounts his conversion, Paul places his baptism as a later result of his conversion, not a cause (Acts 9, 22, 26).

Grammar and Syntax of Acts 22:16

The grammar and syntax of Acts 22:16 does not teach baptism preceding salvation or washing away sins. Luther B. McIntyre, Jr. explains well in his article, “Baptism and Forgiveness” (Bib Sac, Jan-March, 1996, pp. 61-62):

The Greek sentence has two participles and two imperatives: “Arising, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling upon his name.” Many English translations include two conjunctive “ands,” but the Greek text has only one kai (“and”). The construction is participle-verb-kai-verb-participle.

William MacDonald in his Bible Believer’s Commentary (NT, p. 469) suggests that best approach to this verse is to associate each participle with its nearest verb. This is entirely consistent with what A. T. Robertson (Greek Grammar, p. 1109) calls the adverbial use of the participle.

Based on the Greek construction, the washing away of sins is connected with ‘calling upon his name,’ not with being baptized. That agrees with Peter’s own appeal to the prophet Joel in Acts 2:21 that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” As Polhill says in his Acts commentary (p. 461), “The overarching term, however, is “calling upon the name of the Lord,” the profession of faith in Christ that is the basis for the act of baptism.

Some might not like the use of grammar and syntax getting in the way of their proof text. However, the grammar and syntax also agree with the vast and overall scriptural teaching of faith alone for salvation.

Context

In Acts 9:13, Ananias referred to Paul (then Saul) as “this man,” yet later, he calls Paul his “brother.” Paul was already converted before his baptism in verse 18. Brother was a term adopted by the early disciples. They used the term to express their familial love for each other in Christ. The shift from man to brother in the words of Ananias indicate Paul’s conversion preceded baptism.

[I suggest everyone to read, again, Thomas Ross’s book, Heaven Only For the Baptized? This book does a far more thorough job than above in debunking Acts 22:16 as a baptismal regeneration proof text.]

More to Come

John 3:36, the Second “Believeth” (Apeitheo), and English Translation of the Bible

October 12, 2021 / 1 Comment on John 3:36, the Second “Believeth” (Apeitheo), and English Translation of the Bible

The King James Version (KJV) of John 3:36 reads:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The English Standard Version (ESV) reads:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

When you read the two, you see a few differences, one major one that may or may not affect or change doctrine, that being “he that believeth not the Son” versus “whoever does not obey the Son.” Which is the better translation or right? Or are they both right?

When you read the English of the KJV, you might think that the first “believeth” and the second “believeth” are the same Greek words translated into the same English word. That makes sense. However, they are not the same Greek words. The first “believeth” translates pisteuo and the second, “believeth not,” translates apeitheo. For that reason, the ESV and the NASV translate it “does not obey” and the NIV translates it “rejects.”

Can apeitheo be translated “believeth not”? Why would the KJV translators not translate apeitheo differently than pisteuo? How much does this translational difference matter?

In a very, very long post in which he mocks those who use the King James only, Mark Ward treats the difference very seriously, like a good reason to change the King James translation. You can know with great certainty that the King James translators knew that these were two different words in John 3:36. They, however, still translated them the same, “believeth.”

The modern version translators also sometimes translate apeitheo with “believe” and not “obey.” The next example of its usage is Acts 14:2 and all the modern versions translate it “unbelieving,” “disbelieve,” and “refused to believe,” the same as the KJV, “unbelieving.” They do not translate, “not obey” or “disobey.” The very next usage is Acts 19:9. The ESV translates the imperfect, “continued in unbelief,” the NIV, “refused to believe,” the KJV, “believed not,” and the NASV alone, “disobedient.”

In Romans 2:8, like all the modern versions, the KJV translates it, “do not obey.” I give you this last example because, it shows that the KJV translators knew they could translate apeitheo, “do not obey,” rather than, “believeth not.” In 1 Peter 3:1, the KJV and the modern versions translate apeitheo, “obey not,” but the NIV translates it, “believe not.”

Here’s what Friberg Lexicon, a modern lexicon, says apeitheo means:

(1) in relation to God disobey, be disobedient (RO 11.30); (2) of the most severe form of disobedience, in relation to the gospel message disbelieve, refuse to believe, be an unbeliever.

Thayer writes in his lexicon:

not to allow oneself to be persuaded; not to comply with; a. to refuse or withhold belief

The typical or normal Greek word translated “obey” in the New Testament is hupakouo. akouo is normally translated, “to hear,” but with the addition of the prefix hupo, it means “to obey.” Forms of that word are translated 21 times in the New Testament. It is the word used in Ephesians 6:1, “Children, obey your parents.” It is always translated, “obey.”

The Greek word peitho without the “a” prefix of apeitheo is translated “persuaded” in Matthew 27:20, the first usage in the New Testament, and the KJV and the modern versions all translate it, “persuaded.” If persuasion is negated, it would be “not persuaded.” If someone is persuaded, he believes. In Matthew 27:43, all the versions translate peitho, “trusts.” “Persuaded,” “convinced,” and “trusted” are normal understanding of peitho. You can see this in the translation in all the versions in its 55 usages in the New Testament.

When apeitheo appears in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word is translated a majority of the times “rebelled” or “rebellious” (Dt 1:26, 9:7, 23, 24, 21:20; Josh 1:18; Ps 68:18; Is 1:23, 36:5, 50:5, 63:10, 65:2; Ez 3:27), which is compatible with “unbelief.”

In the near context of John 3:36, John the Baptist preaches the superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples, so they’ll follow Jesus and not John. In verse 28, John says, “I am not the Christ.” The gospel of John testifies that Jesus is the Christ. Why? So that people will believe that Jesus is the Christ and have eternal life (John 20:30-31). “The Christ” is the Messiah, a Kingly figure. John’s disciples needed to believe in Jesus Christ, that is, submit to Him, follow Him, or obey Him as the Christ. This is the same as believing in Jesus Christ and not being rebellious against Christ. Louw-Nida Lexicon, another modern lexicon, says concerning apeitheo: “unwillingness or refusal to comply with the demands of some authority.” This is not the same as “not obey.” It is a description of unbelief, especially referring to Jesus as Messiah, the Christ, in the context.

Jesus gives testimony or witness as to why He is the Messiah. John argues for this. He wants people to be persuaded by the testimony or witness of Jesus and his own testimony or witness. The greatest reason is that someone is granted everlasting life if he believes or is persuaded by the evidence or testimony or witness. In the near context, apeitheo means, “believeth not.” It is an example of a good translation.

The greater context of John presents the plan of salvation, the gospel. In the context of the gospel, apeitheo means, “believeth not.” Lexicons make note of this. Those not persuaded that Jesus was the Christ by the evidence and the testimony were not believing He was the Son, Who had come from heaven. The Son points back to many Old Testament Messianic allusions, including Genesis 3:16, Genesis 12:1-3, 2 Samuel 7:12-14, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 9:6.

When preaching, I believe it is good to let people know that the second “believeth” of John 3:36 is a different Greek word. It expands on the understanding of the English word “believeth,” which is more than intellectual, but also volitional. Someone cannot remain rebellious against the Son, not be submitting himself to the Son, the Christ, and have everlasting life.

If the translators had translated apeitheo, “obeyeth not,” that would have resulted in a lot more necessary explaining. Today, it would be regularly used to argue for works salvation by those who teach that. They would say, “You’re saved by obeying the Son. So, if you don’t obey Him, you won’t have eternal life.” On the other hand, “believing” is not in contradiction to “obeying.” Unsaved people are said to “obey not the gospel of God” (1 Pet 4:17), and “obey not” translated apeitheo.

I was thinking about translators translating two different Greek words with the same English word in the same verse. One came to mind, James 1:17: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.” The two words translated “gift” are two different Greek words, dosis and dorema. They have two different nuances of meaning. The ESV translates it identically to the KJV. The NIV doesn’t even translate the first “gift, so it’s translation is “every good and perfect gift,” as if there weren’t even two words used. The NASV seems to take in the difference, “every good thing given and every perfect gift.”

The difference between the two Greek words is that dosis puts an emphasis on the giving of the thing and dorema on the thing given. The use of both words elevates the praise to the giving and gifts of and from God the Father. The NASV tries to show that difference, but I think very few people would catch the difference in the mere reading. There are two different adjectives used too, “good” and “perfect.” I know that this occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, two different Greek words translated with the same English word. I believe someone should rely on the original language understanding to define them. It’s very difficult for the meaning to show up in an English word. This will happen.

Ward strains so much to argue for modern versions from John 3:36, that I’m concerned he could pull or tear a muscle. It’s not worth 9 pages and over 4,500 words, like he uses. Let us rejoice that by the grace and providence of God the King James translators knew what they were doing in John 3:36 for the evangelism and then edification of English speaking people. May you be edified by reading this post in contrast to the fear and unbelief caused by that of Ward.

WHAT IS TRUTH

Tag Archives: belief

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part five)