Faith and Baptism

[stabalizer]

Faith in what is the question. you have Faith in the gospel message being taught to you. God works in you to convict you, that is why it says God draws you near. it is not our doing but Gods through his Spirit working on our conscience. Yes no Faith in God but Faith in that what is spoke to you of Christ is true, BUT we could not even have this Faith if it was not for Gods Spirit working in us at the time it is being told to us. once we believe and GOd sees it is TRUE in our hearts, we will have a FAITH in God that what he promised through Christ, OUR inheretance, will be given us. There is a Faith before salvation and after, but they are different. Scripture makes it clear in 1 cor 2 that we can not please God with out the Spirit in us, we dont get the Spirit untill we believe in his Son, so the Faith before salvation must be something else. it is Faith in the message of Christ through the working of God on our conscience. Jn 3:5 speaks of the Spirit and natural birth not water baptism. read verse 8, it says that is of those born of the SPIRIT, NOT of both. Acts 10 says clearly that forgiveness is by belief in verse 43. There is no command to water baptize. why would God ask for something of us when he says Christ fullfilled the reguirements of the Law. and that in Rom 5 he said Chtrist did the one act of obediance and righteousness already. to say such things and then say we must do a one act makes no since does it?

My point is that w/o the hearing of the law ther is no conviction, (A gift of God in itself)

no conviction no repentance

by faith we are water baptized

Acts 10: 48 affirms this. Can we forbid water?

Water baptism after Spirit baptism/ It couldn't be clearer!

They'd already been spirit baptized!

No repentance / no submission

no submission/ no salvation

John 3:5 is speaking of water baptism (an adult decision)
not embiotic fluid = water, (How silly)

Acts 10:47; Can any man forbid embiotic fluid to these that have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Nicodemus asked the same question?

Can I enter my mother's womb a second time?

Rightly divide brother.

 

[jmacvols]

So as you can see, faith and baptism are not two mutually exclusive things. Baptism IS how we go about putting faith in Jesus for salvation.

Baptism is part of the kind of obedient faith that saves. One cannot be justified before God without first having been water baptized. Justification does not occur until God forgives the sins of one, then that one can stand before God having been freed from sin, ie justified before God. So justification is the same as being free from sin. Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome saying they were made free from sin/justified--Rom 6:18 being then made free from sin (justified), ye became the servants of righteousness. The prior verse (Rom 6:17) explains how they were made free from sin/justified and that was by obeying from the heart that form of doctrine. Here we have obedience tied to justification, therefore an obedient faith is tied to justification, opposed to a dead faith, as James says, which cannot justify. Notice that the Romans first obeyed from the heart THEN they were justified. Obedience comes BEFORE justification. Many pervert this by saying one is first justified, then later obeys to show they have been justified. We can see that baptism, a form of obedience, is tied to justification in Rom 6 also. In verse 7, Paul writes, for he that is dead is freed from sin/justified. So whatever causes one to be "dead" is what causes one to become justified. From the context of Rom 6:3-7 we see that it is baptism that causes one to be 'dead',--freed from sin. The old man of sin is buried in the watery grave of baptism and one is then raised to walk in newness of life--justified. Therefore it is in water baptism that God forgives ones sins, then that one becomes justifed/free from sins.

 

[Schroeder]

My point is that w/o the hearing of the law ther is no conviction, (A gift of God in itself)

no conviction no repentance

True

by faith we are water baptized

Acts 10: 48 affirms this. Can we forbid water?

Dont see it. it was used to associate yourself with Christ and what he taught. It was very common to do such a thing. BUT scripture NEVER tells us why we should be water baptized, it hints in 1 cor 1 that it was for association but i dont recall anywhere else that speaks of it.

Water baptism after Spirit baptism/ It couldn't be clearer!

They'd already been spirit baptized!

TRUE i never say it should never be done i just dont see it commanded, escpecially to prove something God already knows.

No repentance / no submission

no submission/ no salvation

True

John 3:5 is speaking of water baptism (an adult decision)
not embiotic fluid = water, (How silly)

Acts 10:47; Can any man forbid embiotic fluid to these that have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Nicodemus asked the same question?

Can I enter my mother's womb a second time?

Rightly divide brother.

why then does he say that is how it is with those baptized with the Spirit in verse 8. what is nicodemus talking about and what is the meaning of flesh gives birth to flesh, is this not reference to water in the verse right before he said it. he asked that because he didnt understand be born again in the Spirit only in the flesh. there is nothing to devide, keep it in context of the passage and it is easy to see it must be natual birth. to say he speaks of being born from above then throws in water baptism in it and when nicodemus is already confused, dont think he would do that. if it was water why did he not EXPLAIN it to nicodemus, and as much it(water baptism) has NOTHING to do with being born again does it.

 

[stabalizer]

True

Dont see it. it was used to associate yourself with Christ and what he taught. It was very common to do such a thing. BUT scripture NEVER tells us why we should be water baptized, it hints in 1 cor 1 that it was for association

It's a bit more than a hint, it looks like a practise to me.
A practise of the early church and the apostles

but i dont recall anywhere else that speaks of it.

(Mark 16: 16) Question; isn't baptism by definition mean immersion?
No infant ever chose to be water baptised as you're defining it as I understand what you're saying, (Honestly I never heard this before)

I've always understood water baptism to be in effect, "calling on the name of the Lord" being baptised into His death that we might be raised in newness of life. In actuallity by coming up out of the water one receives a new name, His. Otherwise maybe the baptiser might just hold the baptised under a little longer than he should.


TRUE i never say it should never be done i just dont see it commanded, escpecially to prove something God already knows.

It never struck me as trying to prove anything, I considered it an act of obedience and a legal issue. Why was it done even under the old testament? John was a levite thereby a priest More an issue of accountability and a way of acknowledging one's submission to God's authority.

That makes it an act of faith.
True
why then does he say that is how it is with those baptized with the Spirit in verse 8. what is nicodemus talking about and what is the meaning of flesh gives birth to flesh, is this not reference to water in the verse right before he said it. he asked that because he didnt understand be born again in the Spirit only in the flesh. there is nothing to devide, keep it in context of the passage and it is easy to see it must be natual birth. to say he speaks of being born from above then throws in water baptism in it and when nicodemus is already confused, dont think he would do that. if it was water why did he not EXPLAIN it to nicodemus, and as much it(water baptism) has NOTHING to do with being born again does it.

Flesh birthing flesh is simply disscribe the law of genesis. A natural process of creation. I don't think Nicodemus was unaware of ritual bathing in context of the law. I don't know enough about the history of it.

Simply put water immersion was about being clean before one entered the temple. It was an ordinance then. why not now? I don't see or recall any scripture or words of Jesus abolishing it.

I appreciate the discussion and I"ll give your pov prayerful consideration.

 

[Edial]

Baptism is part of the kind of obedient faith that saves. One cannot be justified before God without first having been water baptized. Justification does not occur until God forgives the sins of one, then that one can stand before God having been freed from sin, ie justified before God. So justification is the same as being free from sin. Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome saying they were made free from sin/justified--Rom 6:18 being then made free from sin (justified), ye became the servants of righteousness. The prior verse (Rom 6:17) explains how they were made free from sin/justified and that was by obeying from the heart that form of doctrine. Here we have obedience tied to justification, therefore an obedient faith is tied to justification, opposed to a dead faith, as James says, which cannot justify. Notice that the Romans first obeyed from the heart THEN they were justified. Obedience comes BEFORE justification. Many pervert this by saying one is first justified, then later obeys to show they have been justified. We can see that baptism, a form of obedience, is tied to justification in Rom 6 also. In verse 7, Paul writes, for he that is dead is freed from sin/justified. So whatever causes one to be "dead" is what causes one to become justified. From the context of Rom 6:3-7 we see that it is baptism that causes one to be 'dead',--freed from sin. The old man of sin is buried in the watery grave of baptism and one is then raised to walk in newness of life--justified. Therefore it is in water baptism that God forgives ones sins, then that one becomes justifed/free from sins.

Why would you want to say "One cannot be justified before God without first having been water baptized."?

How do you handle this text?

LK 18:9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: `God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

LK 18:13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, `God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

LK 18:14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Thanks,
Ed

 

[jmacvols]

Why would you want to say "One cannot be justified before God without first having been water baptized."?

How do you handle this text?

LK 18:9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: `God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

LK 18:13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, `God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

LK 18:14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Thanks,
Ed

At the time Jesus spoke this parable, the Old Testament law was still in effect. The water baptism for remission of sins in Acts 2 did not come into effect until a while later, hence neither the Pharisee or publican were under the command to be water baptized per Acts 2:38. Remembering that this publican was under the OT law, which was still in effect at this time, therefore he was already in a convenant relationship with God being under the OT law, so he is not an example as to what to do to be saved for the alien, lost sinner who is under the New Testament today.

 

[Edial]

At the time Jesus spoke this parable, the Old Testament law was still in effect. The water baptism for remission of sins in Acts 2 did not come into effect until a while later, hence neither the Pharisee or publican were under the command to be water baptized per Acts 2:38. Remembering that this publican was under the OT law, which was still in effect at this time, therefore he was already in a convenant relationship with God being under the OT law, so he is not an example as to what to do to be saved for the alien, lost sinner who is under the New Testament today.

But why do you say that Acts 2 is what makes water baptism a necessary preclusion to salvation?

The text -

AC 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

V.38. In Greek, "Repent" refers to all. "Be baptized" refers to some. "You" in next sentence of v.38 refers to all.

So, v.39 reads -
Repent (all of you), and be baptized (some of you). And you (all of you) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So, since many did not need to be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit, the Acts 2 cannot mean what you (and many others) say.

And there can be various explanations why a small group needed to be baptized in order to be saved.
BUT, it is not a necessity for salvation.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[jmacvols]

But why do you say that Acts 2 is what makes water baptism a necessary preclusion to salvation?

Baptism is what brings about remission of sins, and one cannot be saved without having his sins first remitted

The text -

AC 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

V.38. In Greek, "Repent" refers to all. "Be baptized" refers to some. "You" in next sentence of v.38 refers to all.

So, v.39 reads -
Repent (all of you), and be baptized (some of you). And you (all of you) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So, since many did not need to be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit, the Acts 2 cannot mean what you (and many others) say.

And there can be various explanations why a small group needed to be baptized in order to be saved.
BUT, it is not a necessity for salvation.

Thanks,
Ed

Let's note a few things about the grammar of Acts 2:38. The words 'repent' and 'baptize' in the original language are in the imperative mood, the imperative means they are both commanded. Therefore if one desires to be saved, he does not have a choice in repenting or not or being baptized or not; he has to do both. Secondly, 'repent' is tied to 'baptize' with the coordination conjunction 'and'. The conjunction 'and' gives equal importance to both 'repent' and 'baptize' and keeps them from being separated. Therefore if baptism is not necessary for salvation, neither is repentance. On the other hand, if repentance is necessary, so is baptism. The fact that 'repent' is singular and 'baptize' is plural doesn't change anything. Peter said be baptized (hekastos humon) every one of you, the phrase 'every one of you' is plural, Thayer, p. 192. Peter addressed the WHOLE group when he said to 'repent' and he addressed each person in the whole when he said 'be baptized'. The SAME group Peter told to repent, he also told to be baptized. Peter did not tell one group to repent and a different group to be baptized. The following link contains a quote from Mr Gingrich, a note Greek scholar, on this very subject:

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/slick1.htm

 

[Edial]

Baptism is what brings about remission of sins, and one cannot be saved without having his sins first remitted

Let me try it from another angle.
Is Water Baptism the ONLY thing that brings about remission of sins?

Let's note a few things about the grammar of Acts 2:38. The words 'repent' and 'baptize' in the original language are in the imperative mood, the imperative means they are both commanded. Therefore if one desires to be saved, he does not have a choice in repenting or not or being baptized or not; he has to do both.
Secondly, 'repent' is tied to 'baptize' with the coordination conjunction 'and'. The conjunction 'and' gives equal importance to both 'repent' and 'baptize' and keeps them from being separated. Therefore if baptism is not necessary for salvation, neither is repentance. On the other hand, if repentance is necessary, so is baptism.

This is presuming that you reject the interpretation of the singular and plural and additional data as defined below.

The fact that 'repent' is singular and 'baptize' is plural doesn't change anything. Peter said be baptized (hekastos humon) every one of you, the phrase 'every one of you' is plural, Thayer, p. 192. Peter addressed the WHOLE group when he said to 'repent' and he addressed each person in the whole when he said 'be baptized'. The SAME group Peter told to repent, he also told to be baptized. Peter did not tell one group to repent and a different group to be baptized. The following link contains a quote from Mr Gingrich, a note Greek scholar, on this very subject:

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/slick1.htm

AC 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

AC 2:40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

And this is what other (the majority) of Greek scholars say.

" ..... Acts 2:38, "And Peter said to them, `Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

Notice that on the surface it seems to prove their point, but not when one applies sound principles of interpretation. Remember the question to always ask is, "What does the passage mean", not, "What does it say?". For instance, Jesus seems to say in Luke 14:33 that one cannot be a disciple (Christian) unless he first gives away all his possessions. Obviously we have to interpret the verse in light of the context and in relation to the rest of Scripture.

First is the historical context. Jesus and the Gentile converts to Judaism were very familiar with the symbol of baptism for cleansing and separation. It was normal practice (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 122; New Bible Dictionary, Douglas, p. 131). John the Baptist continued the symbol of baptismal cleansing of repentance, but noted there was a baptism which superseded it -- that is baptism with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8).

The grammatical context is also important. A key word in Acts 2:38 for the baptismal salvation proponents is "for"; "baptized... for the forgiveness of sins." They insist that the meaning be interpreted "in order to obtain" the forgiveness of sins. The problem with this insistence is that the word "for" (eis, in Greek) has several connotations in New Testament Koine Greek. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that eis is a versatile word which primarily "denotes entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among," (p. 183).

In other words the symbol of baptism could either be pointing towards the cleansing and forgiveness (with reference to), or could pointing to the actual procuring of forgiveness (in order to).

Renowned Greek scholar A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify "aim or purpose" (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean "on the basis or ground of (with reference to), Matthew 10:41; 12:41.

He states that, "the illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine (New Testament Greek) generally.

"One will decide the use here (Acts 2:38) 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..." (Word Pictures of the New Testament, pp. 35-36).

Why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek scholars agree with Robertson? Because the rest of Scripture refutes baptismal regeneration. All one has to do is read Acts 10, concerning the account of Peter taking the gospel (which saves, Romans 1:16), to Cornelius and the Gentiles. As Peter proceeds through the gospel message (vs. 34-43), the Scriptures relate that the gift of the Holy Spirit was received upon believing by these Gentiles before they were baptized in water (10:44-48; 11:17-18). Additionally, the Scripture teaches that this is the same way all are saved (Acts 11:15-18, 15:7-11).

http://www.watchman.org/reltop/baptism.htm"

But regardless, if you are saying that in the NT salvation is impossible without water baptism, how do you understand a "death-bed conversion"?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Schroeder]

Flesh birthing flesh is simply disscribe the law of genesis. A natural process of creation. I don't think Nicodemus was unaware of ritual bathing in context of the law. I don't know enough about the history of it.

Simply put water immersion was about being clean before one entered the temple. It was an ordinance then. why not now? I don't see or recall any scripture or words of Jesus abolishing it.

I appreciate the discussion and I"ll give your pov prayerful consideration.

No he wasnt but he did not understand being born agian that is why he said how can a man entern again the womb. he was thinking only of fleshly idea that is whyChrist told him if he did not understand earhtly things how would he understand Spiritual things. or somethingof that context. that is why he said born of water and of the Spirit showing the first then the secon, which 3:6 shows. and verse 8 clarifys when it says that is of those born of the Spirit. as for Mark 16:16 read john 7:38 i think or where he speaks of living water and how it references the Spirit which he would later give when he was glorified. this goes woith amrk 16:16 and the word baptism. it shows it is the baptism of Christ spoken of in Mark 16:16. also read mark 16:17 about what accompanied those who believed. speaking of the apostles and others at pentacost, when they received the Spirit baptism. also read John 3:16-18 and through to chapter 7. 3:18 is identivle to mark accept the word baptized. he doesnt say this because of what joihn 7 says, he was not yet glorified. and as much doesnt really need to because it is God Gift or Work. his part of salvation.John 6:29 says the owrk reguired of us by God is What. To believe. the other part(you didnt QOUTE them correctly) you wrote you say obediance but read Rom 5 about the one Act of righteousness and obediance. Who did it? also read 1 cor 2 about obeying God with and without the Spirit. They may shed a different light to the subject for you.

 

[Schroeder]

Let me try it from another angle.
Is Water Baptism the ONLY thing that brings about remission of sins?



This is presuming that you reject the interpretation of the singular and plural and additional data as defined below.



AC 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

AC 2:40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

And this is what other (the majority) of Greek scholars say.

" ..... Acts 2:38, "And Peter said to them, `Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

Notice that on the surface it seems to prove their point, but not when one applies sound principles of interpretation. Remember the question to always ask is, "What does the passage mean", not, "What does it say?". For instance, Jesus seems to say in Luke 14:33 that one cannot be a disciple (Christian) unless he first gives away all his possessions. Obviously we have to interpret the verse in light of the context and in relation to the rest of Scripture.

First is the historical context. Jesus and the Gentile converts to Judaism were very familiar with the symbol of baptism for cleansing and separation. It was normal practice (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 122; New Bible Dictionary, Douglas, p. 131). John the Baptist continued the symbol of baptismal cleansing of repentance, but noted there was a baptism which superseded it -- that is baptism with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8).

The grammatical context is also important. A key word in Acts 2:38 for the baptismal salvation proponents is "for"; "baptized... for the forgiveness of sins." They insist that the meaning be interpreted "in order to obtain" the forgiveness of sins. The problem with this insistence is that the word "for" (eis, in Greek) has several connotations in New Testament Koine Greek. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that eis is a versatile word which primarily "denotes entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among," (p. 183).

In other words the symbol of baptism could either be pointing towards the cleansing and forgiveness (with reference to), or could pointing to the actual procuring of forgiveness (in order to).

Renowned Greek scholar A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify "aim or purpose" (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean "on the basis or ground of (with reference to), Matthew 10:41; 12:41.

He states that, "the illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine (New Testament Greek) generally.

"One will decide the use here (Acts 2:38) 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..." (Word Pictures of the New Testament, pp. 35-36).

Why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek scholars agree with Robertson? Because the rest of Scripture refutes baptismal regeneration. All one has to do is read Acts 10, concerning the account of Peter taking the gospel (which saves, Romans 1:16), to Cornelius and the Gentiles. As Peter proceeds through the gospel message (vs. 34-43), the Scriptures relate that the gift of the Holy Spirit was received upon believing by these Gentiles before they were baptized in water (10:44-48; 11:17-18). Additionally, the Scripture teaches that this is the same way all are saved (Acts 11:15-18, 15:7-11).

http://www.watchman.org/reltop/baptism.htm"

But regardless, if you are saying that in the NT salvation is impossible without water baptism, how do you understand a "death-bed conversion"?

Thanks,
Ed

very well stated. i have told them of this same idea but they brush it off. i did not write it as well as you, but it was essentially the same idea. Twice Peter says believe forgives and or saves Acts 10:43 ans acts 16:31. but they mearly ADD to these two or twist them around. you should go to nondenom and under is baptism reguired for salvation and lok at what DRA says. he agrees with jmacvols. you might do better at commenting to him then me. he said because my grammer is so bad (it can be) that it proved i was not lead by the Spirit. so maybe your good writting will convince him.

 

[stabalizer]

No he wasnt but he did not understand being born agian that is why he said how can a man entern again the womb. he was thinking only of fleshly idea that is whyChrist told him if he did not understand earhtly things how would he understand Spiritual things. or somethingof that context. that is why he said born of water and of the Spirit showing the first then the secon, which 3:6 shows. and verse 8 clarifys when it says that is of those born of the Spirit. as for Mark 16:16 read john 7:38 i think or where he speaks of living water and how it references the Spirit which he would later give when he was glorified. this goes woith amrk 16:16 and the word baptism. it shows it is the baptism of Christ spoken of in Mark 16:16. also read mark 16:17 about what accompanied those who believed. speaking of the apostles and others at pentacost, when they received the Spirit baptism. also read John 3:16-18 and through to chapter 7. 3:18 is identivle to mark accept the word baptized. he doesnt say this because of what joihn 7 says, he was not yet glorified. and as much doesnt really need to because it is God Gift or Work. his part of salvation.John 6:29 says the owrk reguired of us by God is What. To believe. the other part(you didnt QOUTE them correctly) you wrote you say obediance but read Rom 5 about the one Act of righteousness and obediance. Who did it? also read 1 cor 2 about obeying God with and without the Spirit. They may shed a different light to the subject for you.

Maybe the best approach is to obey the unction of the Holy Spirit. If one has the opportunity to be water baptized, I think one should.

Can a person be saved outside of water baptism, of course?

Scripture says yes; 1 John 5:16, It's an intercessory invocation for a lost one.

God sees intent of the heart. always

 

[jmacvols]

Let me try it from another angle.
Is Water Baptism the ONLY thing that brings about remission of sins?

Water baptism does remit sins, but water baptism alone will not save, just like belief alone will not save. One has to believe, repent, confess and be baptized and when he is baptized his sins are then washed away, Rev 1:5.

This is presuming that you reject the interpretation of the singular and plural and additional data as defined below.



AC 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

AC 2:40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

And this is what other (the majority) of Greek scholars say.

" ..... Acts 2:38, "And Peter said to them, `Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

Notice that on the surface it seems to prove their point, but not when one applies sound principles of interpretation. Remember the question to always ask is, "What does the passage mean", not, "What does it say?". For instance, Jesus seems to say in Luke 14:33 that one cannot be a disciple (Christian) unless he first gives away all his possessions. Obviously we have to interpret the verse in light of the context and in relation to the rest of Scripture.

First is the historical context. Jesus and the Gentile converts to Judaism were very familiar with the symbol of baptism for cleansing and separation. It was normal practice (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 122; New Bible Dictionary, Douglas, p. 131). John the Baptist continued the symbol of baptismal cleansing of repentance, but noted there was a baptism which superseded it -- that is baptism with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8).

The grammatical context is also important. A key word in Acts 2:38 for the baptismal salvation proponents is "for"; "baptized... for the forgiveness of sins." They insist that the meaning be interpreted "in order to obtain" the forgiveness of sins. The problem with this insistence is that the word "for" (eis, in Greek) has several connotations in New Testament Koine Greek. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that eis is a versatile word which primarily "denotes entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among," (p. 183).

In other words the symbol of baptism could either be pointing towards the cleansing and forgiveness (with reference to), or could pointing to the actual procuring of forgiveness (in order to).

Renowned Greek scholar A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify "aim or purpose" (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean "on the basis or ground of (with reference to), Matthew 10:41; 12:41.

He states that, "the illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine (New Testament Greek) generally.

"One will decide the use here (Acts 2:38) 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..." (Word Pictures of the New Testament, pp. 35-36).

Why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek scholars agree with Robertson? Because the rest of Scripture refutes baptismal regeneration. All one has to do is read Acts 10, concerning the account of Peter taking the gospel (which saves, Romans 1:16), to Cornelius and the Gentiles. As Peter proceeds through the gospel message (vs. 34-43), the Scriptures relate that the gift of the Holy Spirit was received upon believing by these Gentiles before they were baptized in water (10:44-48; 11:17-18). Additionally, the Scripture teaches that this is the same way all are saved (Acts 11:15-18, 15:7-11).

<A href="http://www.watchman.org/reltop/baptism.htm"[/QUOTE" target=_blank>http://www.watchman.org/reltop/baptism.htm"

Tying to make the Greek word 'eis" mean 'because' is an old, old argument that does not hold water. You ask "why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek Scholars agree with Robertson?" All the standard Greek Lexicons I have seen do NOT translate 'eis' as 'because'. Well known scholars like Thayer, Arndt/Gingrich do NOT define 'eis' as 'because'. No translation I know of does not render 'eis' in Acts 2:38 as 'because'. The NIV is a horrible translation with some Calvinistic bias added in, it does not even translate Acts 2:38 with 'because'.

http://www.hevanet.com/jamoran/ChristianArticles/Articles/McCord/EIS.HTM

If you read the above link, you will find that some Baptist do not even agree with Mr. Robertson's ideas on Acts 2:38. Mr Robertson takes a poor stance on 'eis' in Acts 2:38 by essentially saying let one's opinion determine the meaning instead of the bible. I find it curious that Mr Robertson had trouble with the meaning of 'eis' in Acts 2:38 but not in Mt 26:28 where he clearly understands 'eis' to mean 'for'. In Mt 26:28 we have the same phrase in Acts 2 "for the remission of sins." Eph 1:7--in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. So in Mt 26, did Christ shed his blood because sins were already remmited? Of course not, without the shedding of blood is no remission, Heb 9:22. There are those that want to flip flop on the meaning to make sure it suits their liking; they are not consistant. The word 'eis' is found some 1,500 times and is not the first time translated 'because'. This is just another failed attempt to get water baptism out of God's plan of salvation.

But regardless, if you are saying that in the NT salvation is impossible without water baptism, how do you understand a "death-bed conversion"?

Thanks,
Ed

The bible does not teach "death-bed" salvation. It teaches that today is the day for salvation--no one is promised tomorrow.

First, this "death-bed argument" is thrown at me all the time. I have never condsidered it to be a valid one because those who bring it forth do not believe water baptism is necessary for salvation under ANY circumstance, much less a 'death-bed" one. They simply have a bias against water baptism being essential to salvation.

Second, if I am to judge one who died before they were baptized, then there would not be a need for a judgment day. But there will be a judgment day and we can rest assured on that day that God (1)will do what is just and right (2) that God knows the hearts of men and He will separate those that diligently kept His commands from those that looked for loopholes to get around them.

Three, those that make this argument create a problem for themselves. What if an atheist was on his death bed moments from dying. He begins to think there may be a higher power and an after life, but dies not knowing who or what to believe, never believed in Christ. Will he be saved? If you say he will be lost, then he is in the same lost boat as the one who failed to be baptized before he died. One failed to obey God's command to believe the other failed to obey God's command to be baptized. If you now argue "but belief is necessary for salvation and water baptism is not", then we go back to the first point I made: you simply show your bias against water baptism for salvation under any circumstance.

 

[Schroeder]

Maybe the best approach is to obey the unction of the Holy Spirit. If one has the opportunity to be water baptized, I think one should.

Can a person be saved outside of water baptism, of course?

Scripture says yes; 1 John 5:16, It's an intercessory invocation for a lost one.

God sees intent of the heart. always

always obey what the Spirit askes of you, or at least try, BUT know which Spirit it is. we agree just not quite the same way.

 

[Schroeder]

Water baptism does remit sins, but water baptism alone will not save, just like belief alone will not save. One has to believe, repent, confess and be baptized and when he is baptized his sins are then washed away, Rev 1:5.

So Christ lied to us in john 3:16 and the other 10 or so verse after this when he said believe in me and you will be saved. OR he just forgot to mention water baptism.

Tying to make the Greek word 'eis" mean 'because' is an old, old argument that does not hold water. You ask "why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek Scholars agree with Robertson?" All the standard Greek Lexicons I have seen do NOT translate 'eis' as 'because'. Well known scholars like Thayer, Arndt/Gingrich do NOT define 'eis' as 'because'. No translation I know of does not render 'eis' in Acts 2:38 as 'because'. The NIV is a horrible translation with some Calvinistic bias added in, it does not even translate Acts 2:38 with 'because'.

the rest of scripture shows us it could not mean what you think it does. you translate all of scripture with this one verse.

If you read the above link, you will find that some Baptist do not even agree with Mr. Robertson's ideas on Acts 2:38. Mr Robertson takes a poor stance on 'eis' in Acts 2:38 by essentially saying let one's opinion determine the meaning instead of the bible. I find it curious that Mr Robertson had trouble with the meaning of 'eis' in Acts 2:38 but not in Mt 26:28 where he clearly understands 'eis' to mean 'for'. In Mt 26:28 we have the same phrase in Acts 2 "for the remission of sins." Eph 1:7--in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. So in Mt 26, did Christ shed his blood because sins were already remmited? Of course not, without the shedding of blood is no remission, Heb 9:22. There are those that want to flip flop on the meaning to make sure it suits their liking; they are not consistant. The word 'eis' is found some 1,500 times and is not the first time translated 'because'. This is just another failed attempt to get water baptism out of God's plan of salvation.

he did say there was more then one meaning you could use for this word. he did not say it meant only "because"

The bible does not teach "death-bed" salvation. It teaches that today is the day for salvation--no one is promised tomorrow.

First, this "death-bed argument" is thrown at me all the time. I have never condsidered it to be a valid one because those who bring it forth do not believe water baptism is necessary for salvation under ANY circumstance, much less a 'death-bed" one. They simply have a bias against water baptism being essential to salvation.

well if it is God who sees the heart as he says in Acts 15:8 then why could there not be. the person could have been thinking of God long before his death bed.

Second, if I am to judge one who died before they were baptized, then there would not be a need for a judgment day. But there will be a judgment day and we can rest assured on that day that God (1)will do what is just and right (2) that God knows the hearts of men and He will separate those that diligently kept His commands from those that looked for loopholes to get around them.

read john 6:29, what does it say the WORK of us is BELIEF. or did he Forget again to add the water baptism. you are making Christ look foolish. and read every passage that speaks of God and the word COMMAND in it, there is only two commands given.

Three, those that make this argument create a problem for themselves. What if an atheist was on his death bed moments from dying. He begins to think there may be a higher power and an after life, but dies not knowing who or what to believe, never believed in Christ. Will he be saved? If you say he will be lost, then he is in the same lost boat as the one who failed to be baptized before he died. One failed to obey God's command to believe the other failed to obey God's command to be baptized. If you now argue "but belief is necessary for salvation and water baptism is not", then we go back to the first point I made: you simply show your bias against water baptism for salvation under any circumstance.

there is no command to be baptized PERIOD. again prove Christ was in error when he spoke in John 3:16 and many others and John 6:29. then i might think you are right.

 

[Edial]

very well stated. i have told them of this same idea but they brush it off. i did not write it as well as you, but it was essentially the same idea. Twice Peter says believe forgives and or saves Acts 10:43 ans acts 16:31. but they mearly ADD to these two or twist them around. you should go to nondenom and under is baptism reguired for salvation and lok at what DRA says. he agrees with jmacvols. you might do better at commenting to him then me. he said because my grammer is so bad (it can be) that it proved i was not lead by the Spirit. so maybe your good writting will convince him.

.
If anyone is convinced that grammar is an indication of the Holy Spirit's guidance, not much can change his mind about anything.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

To jmacvols -

Water baptism does remit sins, but water baptism alone will not save, just like belief alone will not save.

Remission of sins is a forgiveness of debt.
Christ appropriated this on the cross when he said "It is finished".

You are separating remission of sins from salvation. OK.

If a non-believer gets baptized, are his sins remitted?

One has to believe, repent, confess and be baptized and when he is baptized his sins are then washed away, Rev 1:5.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, ...

Is this the verse you are referring to?

If so, are you saying that the water at the baptism is his blood?

Tying to make the Greek word 'eis" mean 'because' is an old, old argument that does not hold water. You ask "why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek Scholars agree with Robertson?" All the standard Greek Lexicons I have seen do NOT translate 'eis' as 'because'. Well known scholars like Thayer, Arndt/Gingrich do NOT define 'eis' as 'because'. No translation I know of does not render 'eis' in Acts 2:38 as 'because'. The NIV is a horrible translation with some Calvinistic bias added in, it does not even translate Acts 2:38 with 'because'.

http://www.hevanet.com/jamoran/ChristianArticles/Articles/McCord/EIS.HTM

If you read the above link, you will find that some Baptist do not even agree with Mr. Robertson's ideas on Acts 2:38. Mr Robertson takes a poor stance on 'eis' in Acts 2:38 by essentially saying let one's opinion determine the meaning instead of the bible. I find it curious that Mr Robertson had trouble with the meaning of 'eis' in Acts 2:38 but not in Mt 26:28 where he clearly understands 'eis' to mean 'for'. In Mt 26:28 we have the same phrase in Acts 2 "for the remission of sins." Eph 1:7--in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. So in Mt 26, did Christ shed his blood because sins were already remmited? Of course not, without the shedding of blood is no remission, Heb 9:22. There are those that want to flip flop on the meaning to make sure it suits their liking; they are not consistant. The word 'eis' is found some 1,500 times and is not the first time translated 'because'. This is just another failed attempt to get water baptism out of God's plan of salvation..

For the sake of not wasting the "computer ink", let's just agree that the Acts text cannot dogmatically state that there is only one interpretation, which is baptism is necessary for salvation. Another interpretation is not excluded.

The bible does not teach "death-bed" salvation. It teaches that today is the day for salvation--no one is promised tomorrow. ..

I do not understand. The death-bed salvation is about today. It happens all the time.

First, this "death-bed argument" is thrown at me all the time. I have never condsidered it to be a valid one because those who bring it forth do not believe water baptism is necessary for salvation under ANY circumstance, much less a 'death-bed" one. They simply have a bias against water baptism being essential to salvation.

Why not valid?
The validity of an argument has truth in itself. That truth is not relevant upon who delivers it.
Death-bed salvation is a very relevant argument. It is applicable.

Also, I cannot state that there are no cases where water baptism was not instrumental in salvation of a person.
(But by saying that, I mean that it might "encourage" one's faith. Possible.
I am not saying that it plays a remitting role).

Second, if I am to judge one who died before they were baptized, then there would not be a need for a judgment day. But there will be a judgment day and we can rest assured on that day that God (1)will do what is just and right (2) that God knows the hearts of men and He will separate those that diligently kept His commands from those that looked for loopholes to get around them.

No one is asked to judge whether one is saved or not. Only God and the person himself know whether one is saved.
We are required however, to have a response concerning the great salvation that we preach.
And we should preach what we know.
I am not saying we should not preach salvation without understanding it. But in time we should understand it.
Death-bed question needs to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.

Three, those that make this argument create a problem for themselves. What if an atheist was on his death bed moments from dying. He begins to think there may be a higher power and an after life, but dies not knowing who or what to believe, never believed in Christ. Will he be saved?.

No.
But "higher power" and afterlife is a far cry from Jesus Christ.
Shamans also believe that.

If you say he will be lost, then he is in the same lost boat as the one who failed to be baptized before he died. One failed to obey God's command to believe the other failed to obey God's command to be baptized..

I do not agree.
An atheist did not know God. It is not necessarily a matter of obedience. As a former athest, I should know.

And a point of a death-bed example is that the illness by which one is dying makes it impossible, or at least unlikely, to perform water baptism.
It is not a matter of disobedience.

If you now argue "but belief is necessary for salvation and water baptism is not", then we go back to the first point I made: you simply show your bias against water baptism for salvation under any circumstance.

Why are you leading towards a stalemate?
I will attempt to avoid circular reasoning.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Schroeder]

.
If anyone is convinced that grammar is an indication of the Holy Spirit's guidance, not much can change his mind about anything.

Thanks,
Ed

God can do amazing things.

 

[Edial]

God can do amazing things.

Agree.

Ed

 

[jmacvols]

To jmacvols -

Remission of sins is a forgiveness of debt.
Christ appropriated this on the cross when he said "It is finished".

You are separating remission of sins from salvation. OK.

No I am not, one is not in a saved position until his sins are first forgiven by God. Remission of sins is tied to and comes before salvation.

If a non-believer gets baptized, are his sins remitted?

No, belief is a prerequisite to salvation--all a non-believer would do is get wet.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, ...

Is this the verse you are referring to?

If so, are you saying that the water at the baptism is his blood?

No. The blood of Christ is connected to His death on the cross; He shed his blood in His death, Jn 19:34, so Christ's death and blood are connected. So Paul in Rom 6:3-7 says we are baptized into Christ's death, so when one is immersed, he comes into contact with the merits of Christ's death and receives the benefits of His death. Since Christ shed His blood in His death, and one is baptized into His death, then Christ blood is connected to water baptism. We know that Jesus shed His blood for remission of sins, Mt 26:28, and one is baptized for the same purpose, Acts 2:38. So when one is baptized for the remission of sins, he will receive forgiveness thru the blood of Christ. So when one is water baptized into Christ's death, that baptism puts one in "contact" with the blood of Christ which remits sins. The old man of sin is buried in the watery grave and then one is raised to walk in newness of life. "Belief only" cannot and will not bring one into Christ's death where His blood can "wash away the sins."

For the sake of not wasting the "computer ink", let's just agree that the Acts text cannot dogmatically state that there is only one interpretation, which is baptism is necessary for salvation. Another interpretation is not excluded.

No, I do not agree with this. This bible speaks for itself, 2 Pet 1:20. The bible, God's word is truth and truth is not open for personal, private interpretation. Acts 2:38 is simple and straight-forward that it takes repentance AND baptism THEN one's sins are remitted. I do not accept changing the meaning of Greek words (eis) or the tampering with the grammar or rearranging of words of Acts 2:38 as "interpretations". I do understand there are those that have a bais against the necessity of water baptism and try to get it out of the bible.

I do not understand. The death-bed salvation is about today. It happens all the time.

"Belief only" does not save one on their death-bed no more than it would save a completely healthy person.

Why not valid?
The validity of an argument has truth in itself. That truth is not relevant upon who delivers it.
Death-bed salvation is a very relevant argument. It is applicable.

I do not accept it as valid for the reason I stated. You don't believe water baptism is necessary under ANY circumstance, much less a "death-bed" one. Therefore you try to create a death-bed situation where one might can believe but not be able to be water baptized so you can try and prove "belief only" saves. I can easily see through this. Is water baptism necessary for salvation for a completely healthy person?

Also, I cannot state that there are no cases where water baptism was not instrumental in salvation of a person.
(But by saying that, I mean that it might "encourage" one's faith. Possible.
I am not saying that it plays a remitting role).

"Cases" do not detemine water baptism's necessity, the bible makes it necessary and for me, that ends it.

No one is asked to judge whether one is saved or not. Only God and the person himself know whether one is saved.
We are required however, to have a response concerning the great salvation that we preach.
And we should preach what we know.
I am not saying we should not preach salvation without understanding it. But in time we should understand it.
Death-bed question needs to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.

Again, NO ONE, whether on a death-bed or completely healthy, will be saved by "belief only". As I stated before, many try to use "death-bed salvation" as a loophole to get around water baptism. I am going to assume that you are healthy right now, not lying on your death-bed. Hence there is nothing to prevent you from being water baptized. But if you wait until an accident happens, sudden sickness etc and you are on a death bed, then I would hold no hope for you, you let your opportunites go by.

No.
But "higher power" and afterlife is a far cry from Jesus Christ.
Shamans also believe that.
I do not agree.
An atheist did not know God. It is not necessarily a matter of obedience. As a former athest, I should know.
And a point of a death-bed example is that the illness by which one is dying makes it impossible, or at least unlikely, to perform water baptism.
It is not a matter of disobedience.
Why are you leading towards a stalemate?
I will attempt to avoid circular reasoning.

Thanks,
Ed

No, you either missed my point or you are avoiding it. I won't let you get away with using a death-bed by saying one can believe only on their death bed and not be baptized but still be saved. Yet an un-believing person on their death-bed dies without believing will be lost. The unbelieving is in the same boat as the unbaptized; they both failed to follow the command of Christ. Your bias against baptism shows very much here, you want Mk 16:16 to say he that believeth is saved, but it says he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved.