Do you get saved through baptism?

[Nadiine]

It's not hard to explain, Nadiine. You just did explain it. But this teaching is very offensive to those who hold to heresies such as works-righteousness and decision theology. And those two run rampant in the modern pop-evangelical church of this country and are taught as Biblical fact, when in fact, they are lies of the devil.

if I didn't know your beliefs already, I'd say that sounds Calvanistic
but I know you aren't. (not that I want to get into that topic lol).

But I've always believed that it's this teaching of US doing things that produce ours & other people's salvations, that's led to so much works based errors.
Like, not using proper discipline when it's warrented, thinking that we have to continue on with people who clearly we should be separating from,...
all to "save" others.

We base alot of our salvation onto what we project comes from us.
& at the same time, God does use us as instruments in His plan.

very simple but at the same time its deep & profound.

I won't continue on this, but just wanted to mention that & why I think it's done some damage to the modern church/Christianity today in our tactics of evangelism.

 

[Zecryphon]

if I didn't know your beliefs already, I'd say that sounds Calvanistic
but I know you aren't. (not that I want to get into that topic lol).

Luther was teaching on total depravity and our complete and total inability to save ourselves before Calvin was. So, in reality, Calvin came along and agreed with the Lutherans.

But I've always believed that it's this teaching of US doing things that produce ours & other people's salvations, that's led to so much works based errors.

Yep. I don't know how much clearer Ephesians 2:8-9 could be. In fact, if you read Ephesians 2:1-10, that clearly explains the whole thing. How people can think they contribute something to their salvation after reading those verses, is completely beyond me.

Like, not using proper discipline when it's warrented, thinking that we have to continue on with people who clearly we should be separating from,...
all to "save" others.

We base alot of our salvation onto what we project comes from us.
& at the same time, God does use us as instruments in His plan.

Right, the desires that we think are our own, like wanting to go share the gospel message, witnessing to others, doing good deeds, etc. are all in fact actions that flow from God's redeeming work in our lives. It is because God worked in us first, that we now want to do these things, not because we're so good already that we now go and do these things.

very simple but at the same time its deep & profound.

I won't continue on this, but just wanted to mention that & why I think it's done some damage to the modern church/Christianity today in our tactics of evangelism.

It's done a great deal of damage and it's very difficult to undo that damage. These teachings are the bread and butter of American Evangelicalism in this country and most people have been taught these things as being scripturally sound. So it's extremely difficult for us to open their eyes to the truth of what scripture actually says. But it is not extremely difficult or impossible for God to open their eyes. And that's where the correction is going to have to come from. God must reveal it to them, just as He revealed it to me.

 

[ARBITER01]

It's not hard to explain, Nadiine. You just did explain it. But this teaching is very offensive to those who hold to heresies such as works-righteousness and decision theology. And those two run rampant in the modern pop-evangelical church of this country and are taught as Biblical fact, when in fact, they are lies of the devil.

Whoa wait a minute here. This smug attitude of yours, like you have it all figured out, really needs to go here pal.

GOD draws us, even does the work to give us the faith to reach up to HIM, but we still have to speak the words and ask forgiveness to receive, as we see what Peter said here,..

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Axe and I may disagree about when the apostles received their salvation, but if anyone is promoting heresy in this thread, it would be coming from your arena my friend, not hers.

It takes a conscious choice on our part to speak and ask for that forgiveness from the heart, it is not handed to us without it.

 

[Zecryphon]

Whoa wait a minute here. This smug attitude of yours, like you have it all figured out, really needs to go here pal.

Where's the smugness? I just said it's not hard to explain.

GOD draws us, even does the work to give us the faith to reach up to HIM, but we still have to speak the words and ask forgiveness to receive, as we see what Peter said here,..

Sorry, but true repentance is done because of God's work in your heart. It does not have to be verbalized. You can pray to God silently and still be saved. Some people associate repentance with verbal words, but there is nothing in scripture that says repentance MUST be verbal or it doesn't count.

Here is the Strong's explanation of the word "repent"

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.

There is nothing in there that says anything about a need to verbalize the change that has taken place.

And here is Thayer's entry for "repent":

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins
Part of Speech: verb

Again, we see no mention that repentance is verbal. This is a teaching of modern Evangelicalism and historically of denominations like the Baptists. But this idea is clearly not supported in the scriptures.

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
​

Axe and I may disagree about when the apostles received their salvation, but if anyone is promoting heresy in this thread, it would be coming from your arena my friend, not hers.

Saying that we must do something to be saved is heresy. Why is it that every time you post Acts 2:38 you change the word baptize to immerse? Why can't you post scripture as it is written? You are changing the scriptures to suit your personal theology instead of posting them as they are translated. That is dishonest.

It takes a conscious choice on our part to speak and ask for that forgiveness from the heart, it is not handed to us without it.

No, it doesn't. Faith is a gift from God, so yes it is handed to you by God according to His grace as He sees fit. I understand you wanting to play a role in your salvation, I do too. But to say that we do play a role, or that we can not be saved until we do something, is just not scriptural.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Luther belived in paradoxes, that's essentially what seperates Luther and Calvin in their soteriology. Not to mention Luther was not a systematic thinker while Calvin was.

 

[Zecryphon]

Luther belived in paradoxes, that's essentially what seperates Luther and Calvin in their soteriology. Not to mention Luther was not a systematic thinker while Calvin was.

Yep, Luther was not systematic. Philip Melancthton though did, I believe, try to write a systematic theology for the Lutheran faith with his book Loci Communes. In it he wrote on a number of different subjects relevant to the Lutheran reformation, including the important topic of justification by faith.

 

[ARBITER01]

Where's the smugness? I just said it's not hard to explain.

Sorry, but true repentance is done because of God's work in your heart. It does not have to be verbalized. You can pray to God silently and still be saved. Some people associate repentance with verbal words, but there is nothing in scripture that says repentance MUST be verbal or it doesn't count.

Here is the Strong's explanation of the word "repent"

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.

There is nothing in there that says anything about a need to verbalize the change that has taken place.

And here is Thayer's entry for "repent":

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins
Part of Speech: verb

Again, we see no mention that repentance is verbal. This is a teaching of modern Evangelicalism and historically of denominations like the Baptists. But this idea is clearly not supported in the scriptures.

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
​

Saying that we must do something to be saved is heresy. Why is it that every time you post Acts 2:38 you change the word baptize to immerse? Why can't you post scripture as it is written? You are changing the scriptures to suit your personal theology instead of posting them as they are translated. That is dishonest.

No, it doesn't. Faith is a gift from God, so yes it is handed to you by God according to His grace as He sees fit. I understand you wanting to play a role in your salvation, I do too. But to say that we do play a role, or that we can not be saved until we do something, is just not scriptural.

I'm sorry my man, but either you are oblivious to the scriptures on this or you are purposely ignoring the obvious here,..

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach:

Rom 10:9 because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved:

Pretty blatant it's talking about salvation here and the use of our "mouth" I'm not sure how one can say differently, but I guess you and others can try if you really want to defend a church tradition or doctrine.

And as far as using "immersion" instead of that word baptism, this is why,..

Greek- baptizō

English - Baptise

ok, now where is the translation with that word from the Greek? There is none, they transliterate it instead.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Yep, Luther was not systematic. Philip Melancthton though did, I believe, try to write a systematic theology for the Lutheran faith with his book Loci Communes. In it he wrote on a number of different subjects relevant to the Lutheran reformation, including the important topic of justification by faith.

Indeed, Melancthton is quiet an interesting Character himself especially since he tended to embrace more works based soterilogy.

 

[Zecryphon]

I'm sorry my man, but either you are oblivious to the scriptures on this or you are purposely ignoring the obvious here,..

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach:

Rom 10:9 because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved:
​

That scripture does not make verbalization of repentance mandatory for salvation. Confessing Jesus as Lord is not the same as repentance. Go look up what repentance means, I have posted the definitions for all to see. In fact, the verse you have cited here doesn't even prove your assertion that repentance must be verbal in order for one to be saved. So you can keep your personal attacks and rude insinuations to yourself as they are not relevant to this discussion.

Pretty blatant it's talking about salvation here and the use of our "mouth" I'm not sure how one can say differently, but I guess you and others can try if you really want to defend a church tradition or doctrine.

You're the one defending a church tradition here. Not me or anyone else. You're saying that unless one confesses with their mouth, and cited Acts 2:38 as your source previously, they can not be saved. I guess it's encouraging that you realize that verse does not support your assertion in regards to verbal repentance and have moved on to this verse in Romans. However, this verse does not place the emphasis on verbal repentance for salvation that you are promoting.

I wish you'd make up your mind. On the one hand you argue with FA that baptism does indeed save and that it's not merely symbolic. But on the other hand you then say that unless one verbalizes their repentance with their mouth, they can not be saved. So which is it? Do you believe that we must verbally repent of our sins in order to be saved or does God's work through baptism save us? If it's the former, where is your scriptural support for that assertion? It's not in Acts 2:38 and it isn't here.

I've shown that repentance is not verbal. The original languages do not support your assertion. So where is this idea coming from? It's most likely coming from your church's interpretation of the scriptures, that you are elevating above what is plainly written in the original languages.

And as far as using "immersion" instead of that word baptism, this is why,..

Greek- baptizō

English - Baptise

ok, now where is the translation with that word from the Greek? There is none, they transliterate it instead.

It's still dishonest to replace the word "baptize" with "immerse" whenever you see the word "baptize." There are more definitions for the word "baptizo" than just immerse.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

What we have to do when we read scripture is to figure out which definition of this word fits according to the context of the passage. I don't see you doing that. I see you replacing baptize with immerse, because that supports your own personal theology.

 

[ARBITER01]

That scripture does not make verbalization of repentance mandatory for salvation. Confessing Jesus as Lord is not the same as repentance. Go look up what repentance means, I have posted the definitions for all to see. In fact, the verse you have cited here doesn't even prove your assertion that repentance must be verbal in order for one to be saved. So you can keep your personal attacks and rude insinuations to yourself as they are not relevant to this discussion.

You're the one defending a church tradition here. Not me or anyone else. You're saying that unless one confesses with their mouth, and cited Acts 2:38 as your source previously, they can not be saved. I guess it's encouraging that you realize that verse does not support your assertion in regards to verbal repentance and have moved on to this verse in Romans. However, this verse does not place the emphasis on verbal repentance for salvation that you are promoting.

I wish you'd make up your mind. On the one hand you argue with FA that baptism does indeed save and that it's not merely symbolic. But on the other hand you then say that unless one verbalizes their repentance with their mouth, they can not be saved. So which is it? Do you believe that we must verbally repent of our sins in order to be saved or does God's work through baptism save us? If it's the former, where is your scriptural support for that assertion? It's not in Acts 2:38 and it isn't here.

I've shown that repentance is not verbal. The original languages do not support your assertion. So where is this idea coming from? It's most likely coming from your church's interpretation of the scriptures, that you are elevating above what is plainly written in the original languages.

Lol, figured you would do that. You're just like clockwork my friend.

That whole section of Romans by Paul dealt with salvation and what real circumcision was, of the heart by The Holy Spirit ie from repentance, yet you did just exactly what I figured you would do, try to make it speak of something else or ignore it altogether.

I'm not going to change the scriptures I presented here just because the denominational person desires to disregard them, sorry.

We'll just have to agree to disagree over it since it is quite obvious you and I are not speaking the same language here, nor will we ever I think. Maybe there will come a time when you will really decide to spend time with the scriptures to let GOD be true and every man a liar, but I doubt it.

It's still dishonest to replace the word "baptize" with "immerse" whenever you see the word "baptize." There are more definitions for the word "baptizo" than just immerse.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

What we have to do when we read scripture is to figure out which definition of this word fits according to the context of the passage. I don't see you doing that. I see you replacing baptize with immerse, because that supports your own personal theology.

What is dishonest before people is not translating the Greek word in our bibles to really mean something. I'm actually being honest here about it, by applying an english word that describes what baptizo means rather than use a made up word that sounds similar as the Greek word without explaining it.

You're free to follow the crowd and say differently to uphold your church doctrinal stance on it, but scripture meanings and context decide doctrinal positions, not the traditions of men, although you seem to want to ignore that.

 

[Zecryphon]

Lol, figured you would do that. You're just like clockwork my friend.

That whole section of Romans by Paul dealt with salvation and what real circumcision was, of the heart by The Holy Spirit ie from repentance, yet you did just exactly what I figured you would do, try to make it speak of something else or ignore it altogether.

Are you ever going to address anything I say with scriptures or are you going to continue to make personal observations about me that are not relevant to the topic we are discussing? There's still nothing here that supports your assertion that repentance must be verbal in order for one to be saved.

I'm not going to change the scriptures I presented here just because the denominational person desires to disregard them, sorry.

It's clear what you're not going to do. You are not going to support anything you say with scripture, because you can't. Nowhere in scripture does it say that repentance must be verbal. This is your assertion and it still remains unsupported by both you and by scripture.

We'll just have to agree to disagree over it since it is quite obvious you and I are not speaking the same language here, nor will we ever I think. Maybe there will come a time when you will really decide to spend time with the scriptures to let GOD be true and every man a liar, but I doubt it.

Wow, more personal attacks because you can't produce any scripture to support your assertion.

It's still dishonest to replace the word "baptize" with "immerse" whenever you see the word "baptize." There are more definitions for the word "baptizo" than just immerse.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

What we have to do when we read scripture is to figure out which definition of this word fits according to the context of the passage. I don't see you doing that. I see you replacing baptize with immerse, because that supports your own personal theology.

​

What is dishonest before people is not translating the Greek word in our bibles to really mean something. I'm actually being honest here about it, by applying an english word that describes what baptizo means rather than use a made up word that sounds similar as the Greek word without explaining it.

Baptizo means a few different things according to what I have posted. What you are doing is taking the meaning that fits your theology best and using that instead of the word that is already present in the scriptures.

You're free to follow the crowd and say differently to uphold your church doctrinal stance on it, but scripture meanings and context decide doctrinal positions, not the traditions of men, although you seem to want to ignore that.

It's obvious that you don't have any scriptural support for your assertion. Therefore it is dismissed. You can spout off at the mouth all you like about how I'm supporting the doctrines of men and denominational stances, but the fact remains that it is you who have made an assertion and can not support it scripturally. And no matter how many personal insults and snide insinuations you wanna throw my way, that FACT will never ever change. So, it's probably best that we agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[BlackJack77]

Hi. I don't want to get into an argument with anybody, but I thought I should contribute that "speaking" is a common theme in the Scripture. What we speak means something. The Scripture says that the power of life and death are in the tongue. Everything that exists God spoke into being. Romans 10:10 says that confession with our mouths is made unto salvation. I mean unless we are mute, what logical reason would there be not to repent to the Lord in an audible voice? It should be a simple and basic fundamental understanding formulated from the whole of Scripture. But in any case, not something anyone should be beheaded over that's for sure. Contending earnestly for the faith is one thing, but eating each other for lunch is another. Shouldn't we be able to have discussions over minor differences without gnawing on one another's backs? Let us be known by our fruit. Jesus said we would be known as being His, by how we love one another. Patience and forbearance are a couple of the fruits of the Spirit that come to mind that might be of more benefit. I'm sorry if I offended, it isn't my intention. I didn't even plan to address the behavior, it just sort of came out and there it is. Sincerely in Christ, Jack

 

[ARBITER01]

Hi. I don't want to get into an argument with anybody, but I thought I should contribute that "speaking" is a common theme in the Scripture. What we speak means something. The Scripture says that the power of life and death are in the tongue. Everything that exists God spoke into being. Romans 10:10 says that confession with our mouths is made unto salvation. I mean unless we are mute, what logical reason would there be not to repent to the Lord in an audible voice? It should be a simple and basic fundamental understanding formulated from the whole of Scripture. But in any case, not something anyone should be beheaded over that's for sure. Contending earnestly for the faith is one thing, but eating each other for lunch is another. Shouldn't we be able to have discussions over minor differences without gnawing on one another's backs? Let us be known by our fruit. Jesus said we would be known as being His, by how we love one another. Patience and forbearance are a couple of the fruits of the Spirit that come to mind that might be of more benefit. I'm sorry if I offended, it isn't my intention. I didn't even plan to address the behavior, it just sort of came out and there it is. Sincerely in Christ, Jack

You're correct, life and death is in our tongue, Paul didn't say what he said to just be saying it.

Foundational issues always become a point of contention amongst believers, but we are to go beyond those into the meat of the word. We are to let patience have it's perfective work and add the works of Jesus to perfect that faith.

The standard is this,..

Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father.

So yea, arguments over foundational principles are sort of ridiculous when we realize there are many things that GOD wants to do through us just like HE did through Jesus.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Oh so I'm not being "real" because I take Jesus at His word? Please. Tell me you have something better than snide insinuations to offer here. Jesus said to baptize the nations. Babies are a part of the nations. There's not getting around it. The command to baptize applies to all people. That is what the whole of scripture attests to.

Babies are not able to repent, so are not able to be baptized--they could drown! Baptism is for the believer. When babies grow to the age where they can understand their sinfulmess and they can repent, then they can decide to obey God for themselves and be baptized.

You cannot confer grace upon anyone by baptizing them--they aren't being obedient, but you in fear are somehow imputing your obedience on them. It doesn't work that way. ther eis no virtue in it.

It is meaningless, as baptism is something we do, cognizant of our new standing in God. A child is oblivious to that and God knows full well that he is, and doesn't require it of him.

 

[Floatingaxe]

That is absolute heresy. Ephesians 2:8-9 totally obliterates this position. Repentance is a response to God's work in our lives. It is not the thing we must do to initiate the process of salvation.

I know heresy and that isn't it. The response is indeed repentance and without it, well, you may as well forget about knowing God.

 

[Zecryphon]

Axe, until you realize that baptism is something God does for us and not something we do for God, we will always disagree about this. And full immersion is not the only way to baptize a person. In fact the majority of Christians sprinkle as opposed to full immersion. Full immersion in regards to baptism is practiced by the minority.. So we should agree to disagree on this.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Axe, until you realize that baptism is something God does for us and not something we do for God, we will always disagree about this. And full immersion is not the only way to baptize a person. In fact the majority of Christians sprinkle as opposed to full immersion. Full immersion in regards to baptism is practiced by the minority.. So we should agree to disagree on this.

Baptizo means "immerse". Meanings of words don't change according to whim and the aversion to comply with it. Immersion is practiced by those who desire to follow Scripture and do what Jesus did.

God, of course works in us in baptism, but it is most definitely something we MUST DO in obedience to Him--possibly our first act of obedience as a believer. We shouldn't be unrealistic about it.

 

[Zecryphon]

Baptizo means "immerse".

It has been shown already that "immerse" is one meaning of "baptizo" but it is also not the only meaning.

Meanings of words don't change according to whim and the aversion to comply with it. Immersion is practiced by those who desire to follow Scripture and do what Jesus did.

That's right meanings don't change according to whim and no one here has changed what "baptizo" means. But some here have limited "baptizo" to meaning only one thing.

God, of course works in us in baptism, but it is most definitely something we MUST DO in obedience to Him--possibly our first act of obedience as a believer. We shouldn't be unrealistic about it.

That obedience comes after you have been regenerated by God. It's not something we do on our own. The way you have been talking in this thread makes it seem that Baptism is something we do for God in order to be saved. That is not true.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Baptizo does not mean, "sprinkle".

Baptizo: [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)[/FONT]

 

[Floatingaxe]

That obedience comes after you have been regenerated by God. It's not something we do on our own. The way you have been talking in this thread makes it seem that Baptism is something we do for God in order to be saved. That is not true.

Well, the unsaved, unregenerated aren't commanded to be baptized, are they?

I have NEVER said, nor inferred that baptism by water is how we receive salvation. Baptism is for believers only. I think I said that about three, count 'em, THREE times---at least.