Abraham and Faith

Abraham is a great example of Christian faith, he was saved when God accounted his faith as righteousness which is the same process we are saved under. Unfortunately this is misunderstood as faith alone. Because of this many denominations adopted an "at faith" salvation model. If you look closer to the text in Genesis, Abraham wasn't saved "at faith" but had faith years before the actual accounting. Abraham had faith in Genesis 12, but faith wasn't accounted until Genesis 15:6 and following. Abraham sojourned from Genesis 12 to 15 while having faith, God gave a promise in Genesis 12 and Abraham believed it. After a lot of tough trials involving the promise Abraham still believed in Genesis 15:1-6. So it expresses long committed faith and Abraham walked in faith.

So we don't teach Abraham was saved at faith, but when God accounts faith. In Christianity this occurs in baptism, not infant baptism but faith baptism. In baptism we express our faith in the work of Christ on the cross. We also express faith in God's forgiveness. In believer's baptism our faith is accounted for righteousness.

Roman 4 acknowledges Abraham and Sara had faith they walked in as they received strength to complete God's promise, not a beginning faith, and Romans 6 acknowledges baptism was the time of our forgiveness and spiritual resurrection. We are raised with Christ in baptism to walk in newness of life.

Galations 3:25-29 ties Abraham's faith to baptism. It couldn't be any clearer. We are Abraham's seed because we entered into Christian baptism through faith. This occurs through faith, it is when our faith is accounted. Many falsely accuse us of believing in a work, but our work is directed toward belief in the cross. Such works don't violate Ephesians 2:8. Such works don't claim self-righteousness but accept God's imputed righteousness. As in James 2 where Abraham is justified through works, but his righteousness is imputed. 

This is why those practicing infant baptism aren't actually saved. It is why those practicing baptism merely as a symbol aren't actually saved. Neither practice baptism in the faith given by God. Neither can have faith accounted without biblical baptism. The reason Baptists and Methodists can't be saved is they have circumvented the process God uses to impute faith.

In Acts 2:38 there are five points in baptism

1. It was commanded to all.

2. repentance - baptism is an act of repentance. Repentance is impossible without baptism. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance as well.

3. upon the Name of Jesus Christ - this is a view toward the work of the Christ which is accomplished in the office and authority of the Christ. It doesn't have the name Jesus in the Greek text, just "in the name Christ" or "Upon the name Christ". So anyone arguing or refusing is rejecting Christ's authority. The office or position is being stressed. Christian baptism resides in and under the office of Christ and not under the church per se, so the church has no direct authority to alter it. We can't make it three modes like sprinkling, pouring, or dipping. We can't make purpose optional. 

4. for the remission of sins - sins are not forgiven yet, the word for (eis) looks future or gives purpose. In this verse it gives purpose.

5. It is based on promise, therefore future blessing is in view. Even if you argue incorrectly that sins are already forgiven, many blessings like going to heaven are future. These are contingent upon forgiveness. Baptism relates to all future parts of the promise.

Many claim the Greek word eis in "For" the remission of sins can look back at purpose, because the word "at" is translated from eis. At doesn't denote time but direction.

see: they repented "at" the preaching of Jonah

Some lexicons like Robertson's bring this verse up as an example, but it is a bad example, the phrase "at the preaching" signifies direction, not past or present. Such clauses are used to add an element to the sentence like direction, past is noted in the word repented and not in the clause, the clause itself is not past or future in this case. So Robertson's example falls apart. The clause is neutral and is simply used in a sentence with a past tense verb. In Acts 2:38 repent and be baptized are future. The clause points back to two future verbs, so the word remission must be future.

Notice these two uses:

I am going to hit the ball at the shortstop.

I hit the ball at the shortstop.

The word "at" can be used equally with past or future, it is not past or future in and of itself, it is simply denoting direction or purpose. In Acts 2:38 the term "be baptized" makes the sentence look forward, since none of the audience had been baptized under Christ yet it couldn't take on a past tense meaning.

In Greek the Eis clause goes back to the verb, in this case a compound verb, "repent and be baptized", compound because repentance is fulfilled in baptism. The conjunction "and" ties them together. So the clause containing "eis" goes back to the verbs which are both future. There are no other verbs in the sentence eis can point to, so claiming eis points back to something already accomplished would be adding to God's word. People can argue the context is there but context comes from words, and there are no words pointing back.