Faith and Baptism

[Edial]

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.



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



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."





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.



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




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?



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




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, 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.

I see.
So you are saying that if a believer is not baptized in the water he cannot be saved.
So, all the people that repent at the death-bed (and there are plenty) go to hell, since there was no water. OK.

How is that water to be administered?
Does it need to be a qualified baptizer to do that? What qualofies one to baptize? Can one baptize himself?
How much water is needed? Full immersion or sprinkling is sufficient?
(I am not making fun, nor am I teasing, I do want understand your thoughts).

And concerning the Acts text, I am not trying to "get away"
with a statement that it can be interpreted 2 ways.
Because it WAS interpreted 2 ways by the Greek scholars throughout the history.
And the primary way that was interpreted was not favorable to your position.

You might not accept it (and you will probably not), but it does not change the fact that the Greek scholars do agree that it can be translated 2 ways.

This you have no defense against.

But I am more interested in the questions that I asked above.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[KEPLER]

I see.
So you are saying that if a believer is not baptized in the water he cannot be saved.
So, all the people that repent at the death-bed (and there are plenty) go to hell, since there was no water. OK.

How is that water to be administered?
Does it need to be a qualified baptizer to do that? What qualofies one to baptize? Can one baptize himself?
How much water is needed? Full immersion or sprinkling is sufficient?
(I am not making fun, nor am I teasing, I do want understand your thoughts).

And concerning the Acts text, I am not trying to "get away"
with a statement that it can be interpreted 2 ways.
Because it WAS interpreted 2 ways by the Greek scholars throughout the history.
And the primary way that was interpreted was not favorable to your position.

You might not accept it (and you will probably not), but it does not change the fact that the Greek scholars do agree that it can be translated 2 ways.

This you have no defense against.

But I am more interested in the questions that I asked above.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

I just wan to insert a small caveat here, if I may. In other discussions you and I have had, you have heard me say, "Baptism is necessary for salvation." Please, however, don't confuse my (i.e., the Lutheran) position with this view, which I believe is the Campbellite view.

Lutherans would NEVER say that a deathbed convert was not saved, or that the thief on the cross was not saved, or that some dude walking down to the baptistry who suddenly has a heart-attack was not saved.

Just want to be clear...

Carry on!

Kepler

 

[jmacvols]

I see.
So you are saying that if a believer is not baptized in the water he cannot be saved.

Absolutely! Mk 16;16, He that believeth AND IS baptized shall be saved. This verse of the great commission was carried out when the church began in Acts 2. Can you show me a verse after the church began where one was told to "believe only" in order to be saved?

So, all the people that repent at the death-bed (and there are plenty) go to hell, since there was no water. OK.

So you are asking me to judge these people? As I stated in my prior post on this, if I am going to judge these people, then there is no need for a judgment day. Yet there will be a judment day and God will do what is right and just. He will separate those that obeyed His will from those that looked for loopholes to get around it. You say above "...all the people that repent..." Will these "death-bed people" be able to do "works meet for repentance", Acts 26:20?

How is that water to be administered?
Does it need to be a qualified baptizer to do that? What qualofies one to baptize? Can one baptize himself?
How much water is needed? Full immersion or sprinkling is sufficient?
(I am not making fun, nor am I teasing, I do want understand your thoughts).

Baptize is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, meaning to immerse or over-whelm. Just as Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water. No sprinkling. Water baptism has a human administrator. We see from Mt 28:19,20 the disciples-humans were commanded to do the baptism. Side note: since humans cannot administer baptism with the Holy Spirit, therefore the baptism of the great commission, that last till the end of the world, is water baptism, the one baptism of Eph 4:5, Rom 6:3-7, Col 2:12, Gal 3:27, etc.

And concerning the Acts text, I am not trying to "get away"
with a statement that it can be interpreted 2 ways.
Because it WAS interpreted 2 ways by the Greek scholars throughout the history.
And the primary way that was interpreted was not favorable to your position.

You might not accept it (and you will probably not), but it does not change the fact that the Greek scholars do agree that it can be translated 2 ways.

This you have no defense against.

But I am more interested in the questions that I asked above.

Thanks,
Ed

I disagree. It only makes for common sense that the same verse cannot at the same time teach that baptism is essential and not essential. I accept the verse exactly the way it is and it plainly shows the necesssity of baptism. I do not have to change the grammar, move words around or try to change the meaning of Greek words, only those that have a theological bias against baptism have the need to do these things. I have never come across a standard Greek Lexicon that says 'eis' means because. Noted scholars like Thayer, Arndt & Gingrich, (I even gave a link that showed a Prof at a Baptist based University), do not define eis as "because". I have also pointed out the inconsistancy of Mr A.T. Robertson's position on this, how he is unsure of the meaning of 'eis' in Acts 2:38 but he knows for sure it means 'for' in Mt 26:28. Yet both verses contain the identical phrase, "for the remission of sins."

 

[Schroeder]

Absolutely! Mk 16;16, He that believeth AND IS baptized shall be saved. This verse of the great commission was carried out when the church began in Acts 2. Can you show me a verse after the church began where one was told to "believe only" in order to be saved?

for one this baptism is of the Spirit. harmonize it within the Passage it is written and what is written prior to it. for instance john 3:16-18 john 4,7:38 Where it speaks of this very passage and makes it clear hwat baptism it is. read Mark 16:17 and what the apostles did after they believed. PENtacost, which is when they received the Spirit baptism.(not water). Acts 16:31 shows us to believe ONLY, seeing how it doesnt say to do anything else. there are others but this is a rather clear one. Acts 10:43 is another CLEAR one. Of course it is not hard for you to make it fit your thinking. you later say that it is not hard for you to just read it as it is stated but i doubt you will here with those two verses will you.

So you are asking me to judge these people? As I stated in my prior post on this, if I am going to judge these people, then there is no need for a judgment day. Yet there will be a judment day and God will do what is right and just. He will separate those that obeyed His will from those that looked for loopholes to get around it. You say above "...all the people that repent..." Will these "death-bed people" be able to do "works meet for repentance", Acts 26:20?

you can do nothing in obediance to God before you are saved. Other wise al of rom 5 is wrong and or untrue. as well as 1 cor 2:12.

Baptize is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, meaning to immerse or over-whelm. Just as Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water. No sprinkling. Water baptism has a human administrator. We see from Mt 28:19,20 the disciples-humans were commanded to do the baptism. Side note: since humans cannot administer baptism with the Holy Spirit, therefore the baptism of the great commission, that last till the end of the world, is water baptism, the one baptism of Eph 4:5, Rom 6:3-7, Col 2:12, Gal 3:27, etc.

the actuall deffinition is not nessecarily important. BUT what it is being used as. it is clear baptism is used when speaking of joining something(in Luke when Christ speaks of his sacrifice) about the Spirit, and of course water. we must decide which one of these is being used when the word baptism is being used in the passage. Matt 28 and the word baptism is used as meaning "to join into" which is why there is a comma instead of the word "by" which is what you all keep trying to put there. and it says HE will be with us untill the end.(its so very clear) HOW? in the Spirit, seeing how he is not with us physically at the moment. so all your verse given speak of the Spirit baptism or union with Christ not WATER baptism.

I disagree. It only makes for common sense that the same verse cannot at the same time teach that baptism is essential and not essential. I accept the verse exactly the way it is and it plainly shows the necesssity of baptism. I do not have to change the grammar, move words around or try to change the meaning of Greek words, only those that have a theological bias against baptism have the need to do these things. I have never come across a standard Greek Lexicon that says 'eis' means because. Noted scholars like Thayer, Arndt & Gingrich, (I even gave a link that showed a Prof at a Baptist based University), do not define eis as "because". I have also pointed out the inconsistancy of Mr A.T. Robertson's position on this, how he is unsure of the meaning of 'eis' in Acts 2:38 but he knows for sure it means 'for' in Mt 26:28. Yet both verses contain the identical phrase, "for the remission of sins."

so if you do not have to change or add to this why do you do it to all the others, such as Acts 10:43 and 16:31. all of scripture tells us water baptism is NOT a act for forgiveness or receiving the SPirit. the mear FACT that we are saved by Grace should tell you something BUT of course we changed the deffinition of this word as well. Works is works no matter how you spin it.

 

[Edial]

Absolutely! Mk 16;16, He that believeth AND IS baptized shall be saved. This verse of the great commission was carried out when the church began in Acts 2. Can you show me a verse after the church began where one was told to "believe only" in order to be saved?.

But you also do not see that salvation methodology is ONLY through belief and baptism
So, since I know that you know that there are many Scriptures that show that one gets saved by faith while the baptism is not mentioned, why do you insist that the Bible presents that baptism is necessary for salvation?

So you are asking me to judge these people? As I stated in my prior post on this, if I am going to judge these people, then there is no need for a judgment day. Yet there will be a judment day and God will do what is right and just. He will separate those that obeyed His will from those that looked for loopholes to get around it. You say above "...all the people that repent..." Will these "death-bed people" be able to do "works meet for repentance", Acts 26:20?.

I am not asking you to judge these "death-bed" cases.
You judged them already in your post above by stating that they have no chance of salvation, since they had no chance for water baptism.

Baptize is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, meaning to immerse or over-whelm. Just as Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water. No sprinkling. Water baptism has a human administrator. We see from Mt 28:19,20 the disciples-humans were commanded to do the baptism. Side note: since humans cannot administer baptism with the Holy Spirit, therefore the baptism of the great commission, that last till the end of the world, is water baptism, the one baptism of Eph 4:5, Rom 6:3-7, Col 2:12, Gal 3:27, etc.

I know that baptizo means to immerse.
Does that mean that a baptism that God accepts is ONLY by full immercion?
What if one's tip of the nose is not covered by water, would that considered to be a valid baptism in the eyes of God and therefore no salvation?
Again, I am not teasing nor taunting. Just want to understand your thoughts.

I disagree. It only makes for common sense that the same verse cannot at the same time teach that baptism is essential and not essential. I accept the verse exactly the way it is and it plainly shows the necesssity of baptism. I do not have to change the grammar, move words around or try to change the meaning of Greek words, only those that have a theological bias against baptism have the need to do these things. I have never come across a standard Greek Lexicon that says 'eis' means because. Noted scholars like Thayer, Arndt & Gingrich, (I even gave a link that showed a Prof at a Baptist based University), do not define eis as "because". I have also pointed out the inconsistancy of Mr A.T. Robertson's position on this, how he is unsure of the meaning of 'eis' in Acts 2:38 but he knows for sure it means 'for' in Mt 26:28. Yet both verses contain the identical phrase, "for the remission of sins."

With all due respect ... but it does not really matter whether you agree or disagree with this.
The question was whether there was a diversity among the qualified Greek scholars in interpreting this Greek text.
The facts are that there are MANY Greek scholars that are saying that the Acts texts can be interpreted in a way that is not favorable to your views.
I am not saying that this means that you view is automatically incorrect.
I am saying that you cannot state that your view is the ONLY correct view.

And the fact that there are 2 views concerning a common text, it does not mean that there can be 2 explanations. There is only one explanation.
Therefore, this means that the text is not clear. And if it is not clear, it means it was not revealed to us by God in a clear way on purpose.

And that means that one cannot prove that baptism by immersion is a needed term for salvation of a soul.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Ed,

I just wan to insert a small caveat here, if I may. In other discussions you and I have had, you have heard me say, "Baptism is necessary for salvation." Please, however, don't confuse my (i.e., the Lutheran) position with this view, which I believe is the Campbellite view.

Lutherans would NEVER say that a deathbed convert was not saved, or that the thief on the cross was not saved, or that some dude walking down to the baptistry who suddenly has a heart-attack was not saved.

Just want to be clear...

Carry on!

Kepler

Thanks, I realize that.

My understanding of a Lutheran view is that if one declines to be baptised, yet is claiming to be saved - there is something "wrong" with that fellow.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[KEPLER]

Thanks, I realize that.

My understanding of a Lutheran view is that if one declines to be baptised, yet is claiming to be saved - there is something "wrong" with that fellow.

Thanks,
Ed

Indeed. Terribly wrong...

K

 

[jmacvols]

for one this baptism is of the Spirit. harmonize it within the Passage it is written and what is written prior to it. for instance john 3:16-18 john 4,7:38 Where it speaks of this very passage and makes it clear hwat baptism it is. read Mark 16:17 and what the apostles did after they believed. PENtacost, which is when they received the Spirit baptism.(not water). Acts 16:31 shows us to believe ONLY, seeing how it doesnt say to do anything else. there are others but this is a rather clear one. Acts 10:43 is another CLEAR one. Of course it is not hard for you to make it fit your thinking. you later say that it is not hard for you to just read it as it is stated but i doubt you will here with those two verses will you.

Mark 16:16 is Mark's account of the great commission, and when Mark's account is combined with Matt's and Luke's we find that the baptism of the great commission is:

1-commanded
2-human administrator
3-last till the end of the world.
4-for remission of sins

Nowhere was baptism with the Holy Spirit commanded, humans cannot administer baptism with the Holy Spirit nor would it last till the end of the world, therefore the baptism of the great commission logically has to be water baptism.

Joel's prophecy of baptism with the Holy Spirit has been fulfilled, hence baptism with the Holy Spirit is no more, Peter, an apostle, proves this point. Jesus nailed the OT law to the cross and took it out of the way. Heb 1:1,2, Jesus, not Joel, speaks to us in these last days. Therefore Jesus took it out of the way and Peter proves it was fulfilled, they do not need your correction.

Eph 4:5 says there is ONE baptism. You unabashedly continue to contradict this verse.

you can do nothing in obediance to God before you are saved. Other wise al of rom 5 is wrong and or untrue. as well as 1 cor 2:12.

Jesus said to believe and be baptized, He put these both BEFORE salvation, Peter put repentance and baptism BEFORE remission of sins, so yes, one MUST obey before he can obtain salvation. Again Jesus nor Peter need you to correct them. Therefore the only logically conclusion from your above post is that you simply have a false understanding of 1 Cor 2:12 and Rom 5.

the actuall deffinition is not nessecarily important. BUT what it is being used as. it is clear baptism is used when speaking of joining something(in Luke when Christ speaks of his sacrifice) about the Spirit, and of course water. we must decide which one of these is being used when the word baptism is being used in the passage. Matt 28 and the word baptism is used as meaning "to join into" which is why there is a comma instead of the word "by" which is what you all keep trying to put there. and it says HE will be with us untill the end.(its so very clear) HOW? in the Spirit, seeing how he is not with us physically at the moment. so all your verse given speak of the Spirit baptism or union with Christ not WATER baptism.

Again, the baptism of the great commission is:

-commanded
-human adminitrators
-last till the end of the world
-for remission of sins

None of the above ever refer to baptism with the Holy Spirit, so you are maintaining a wrong position on baptism.

so if you do not have to change or add to this why do you do it to all the others, such as Acts 10:43 and 16:31. all of scripture tells us water baptism is NOT a act for forgiveness or receiving the SPirit. the mear FACT that we are saved by Grace should tell you something BUT of course we changed the deffinition of this word as well. Works is works no matter how you spin it.

Neither Acts 10:43 nor 16:31 teach "belief only". You desperately need to learn the difference between "believe" and "believe only". You also need to study the Greek word for believe 'pisteou' which can mean "obey". You also need to learn that believe is used sometimes as s synecdoche. This is a perfect example of how you rip verses out with no regard to the context and no regard of how they should harmonize with other verses that deal with the same subject. And where does the bible say "works are works"? The bible speaks of different kinds of works, and as long as you fail to see this, you will be in the dark on this subject.

 

[jmacvols]

But you also do not see that salvation methodology is ONLY through belief and baptism
So, since I know that you know that there are many Scriptures that show that one gets saved by faith while the baptism is not mentioned, why do you insist that the Bible presents that baptism is necessary for salvation?

It is very rare to find one verse that sums everything up about a particular topic. Therefore when studying a particular subject, like salvation, all verses that deal with salvation have to be considered Psa 139:17. Taking then the sum of God's thoughts, then we can see it takes belief, repentance, confession and baptism in order to be saved.

I am not asking you to judge these "death-bed" cases.

You judged them already in your post above by stating that they have no chance of salvation, since they had no chance for water baptism.

I can only repeat what the bible says, therefore any thing short of belief, repentance, confession and baptism will not bring salvation. As I pointed out earlier, failure to be baptized will cause one to be lost as much as failure to believe will cause one to be lost. Belief and baptism are equal in their importance and necessity

I know that baptizo means to immerse.

Does that mean that a baptism that God accepts is ONLY by full immercion?
What if one's tip of the nose is not covered by water, would that considered to be a valid baptism in the eyes of God and therefore no salvation?
Again, I am not teasing nor taunting. Just want to understand your thoughts.

"Death beds" and a nose not being covered, (sigh). I do what the Lord requires of me, I do not spend time looking for loopholes to get around His commands.

With all due respect ... but it does not really matter whether you agree or disagree with this.

The question was whether there was a diversity among the qualified Greek scholars in interpreting this Greek text.
The facts are that there are MANY Greek scholars that are saying that the Acts texts can be interpreted in a way that is not favorable to your views.
I am not saying that this means that you view is automatically incorrect.
I am saying that you cannot state that your view is the ONLY correct view.

And the fact that there are 2 views concerning a common text, it does not mean that there can be 2 explanations. There is only one explanation.
Therefore, this means that the text is not clear. And if it is not clear, it means it was not revealed to us by God in a clear way on purpose.

And that means that one cannot prove that baptism by immersion is a needed term for salvation of a soul.

Thanks,
Ed

With all due respect, those "many scholars" are simply wrong. I have pointed out the problems and contradiction A.T. Robertson's "intrepretation" causes. I have shown you scholars who have a similar view as you, but they will not sacrifice their sholarship by changing 'eis' to mean 'because', for they simply know it is wrong. God's word is truth and truth cannot present two contradictiory ideas within the same verse. "Eis" meaning 'for' keeps harmony, whereas changing it to mean "because" creates contradictions among scriptures.

 

[Edial]

It is very rare to find one verse that sums everything up about a particular topic. Therefore when studying a particular subject, like salvation, all verses that deal with salvation have to be considered Psa 139:17. Taking then the sum of God's thoughts, then we can see it takes belief, repentance, confession and baptism in order to be saved.

OK. So since you see that it is hard to find one verse that sums up a topic you are presenting, you are defining "the sum of God's thoughts", and quoting Ps.139:17. But v.18 reflects on v.17.


PS 139:17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
PS 139:18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
.....

V.18 presents that it is impossible to take the sum of God's thought.

And since we know that the Bible does not contain all things in all its clarity, ...

1CO 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

... what do you have left in support of your view, which appears to be but a personal opinion based on own likes and/or dislikes, since you also know that the Bible speaks of salvation by faith where baptism is nowhere in sight?

I can only repeat what the bible says, therefore any thing short of belief, repentance, confession and baptism will not bring salvation. As I pointed out earlier, failure to be baptized will cause one to be lost as much as failure to believe will cause one to be lost. Belief and baptism are equal in their importance and necessity

But the point is that you are "repeating" specific places in the Bible that appear to agree with your opinion.
And these "places" were already examined by countless scholars in 2000 years and the greatest majority of them do not agree with your view.

Again, I am not arguing that a "majority rules" in all cases. I am just presenting that your position is not solid.

Do Christians have a disagreement about Trinity? No. About the deity of Christ? No. Why. Because it is clear in the Bible.

"Death beds" and a nose not being covered, (sigh). I do what the Lord requires of me, I do not spend time looking for loopholes to get around His commands.

1. "Death beds" - it is an important life example to show the irrelevancy of a view that states that if one is not water baptized by full immersion, it is impossible to be saved.
I am not presenting an example of "a person trapped in a deserted island" that is mostly hypothetical, but that which we see in every neighborhood - hospitals. Old and frail people. Full immersion is impossible for them. Many cannot even leave their beds.

2. I baptized people by full immersion. "Nose not being covered" is a common life example that destroys the argument that the full immersion is necessary for salvation.

With all due respect, those "many scholars" are simply wrong. I have pointed out the problems and contradiction A.T. Robertson's "intrepretation" causes. I have shown you scholars who have a similar view as you, but they will not sacrifice their sholarship by changing 'eis' to mean 'because', for they simply know it is wrong. God's word is truth and truth cannot present two contradictiory ideas within the same verse. "Eis" meaning 'for' keeps harmony, whereas changing it to mean "because" creates contradictions among scriptures.

The best that you can possibly state is that you are not certain that water baptism is needed for salvation, since the overwhelming majority of Greek scholars oppose you.
Can it be that maybe your Greek needs improvement?
How well do you know Koine Greek?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[jmacvols]

OK. So since you see that it is hard to find one verse that sums up a topic you are presenting, you are defining "the sum of God's thoughts", and quoting Ps.139:17. But v.18 reflects on v.17.


PS 139:17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
PS 139:18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
.....

V.18 presents that it is impossible to take the sum of God's thought.

And since we know that the Bible does not contain all things in all its clarity, ...

1CO 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

... what do you have left in support of your view, which appears to be but a personal opinion based on own likes and/or dislikes, since you also know that the Bible speaks of salvation by faith where baptism is nowhere in sight?

The sum of God's thoughts on savation can and are known. The bible gives us God's thoughts on salvation and anyone can pick up a bible and go thru the NT and pick out all the verses that deal with salvation and get the "big picture". Contrast this to those who go thru and only pick out verses that have the word "believe" in it, while ignoring all other salvic verses, and they then declare salvation is by 'belief alone".

1 Cor 13:8ff does not support your idea that the bible is not clear. First, Paul told the Ephesians when ye read ye may understand, Eph 3:4 and be not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is, Eph 5:17. Hence God's plan of salvation for man CAN be understood, clearly. 1 Cor 13 is making reference that miracles would cease with the complete revelation of God.

But the point is that you are "repeating" specific places in the Bible that appear to agree with your opinion.

And these "places" were already examined by countless scholars in 2000 years and the greatest majority of them do not agree with your view.

Again, I am not arguing that a "majority rules" in all cases. I am just presenting that your position is not solid.

Do Christians have a disagreement about Trinity? No. About the deity of Christ? No. Why. Because it is clear in the Bible.

You continue to assert that the greatest majority of scholars support your idea on Acts 2:38, but you provide no evidence. The truth of the matter is the other way around. The KJV, NKJV, ASV, NIV, RSV, NASB, NLT, Webster's, Young's Literal Trans., Darby, HNV, among many, many other translation have "for" not "because". This is very odd, if your assertion is true. Even the NIV, as horrible as it is and with its Calvnistic bias does not even translate Acts 2:38 your way, why is this? In the KJV, the word "eis" appears over 1700+ times, yet not even the first time it is translated "because". Again, this seems very odd considering your assertion. I have already noted that well known Greek scholars like Thayer, Arndt/Gingrich, Wallace, Liddel/Scott nor any standard Greek lexicon I know of defines "eis' as 'because'.

1 Tim 1:16 "to everlasting life"--eis zoe aionios, according to your view, one would believe on Christ because one already has everlasting life.

Mt 26:28 "for the remission of sins"--eis aphesis hamartia (just like Acts 2:38). according to your view, Christ shed His blood because men's sins were already forgiven.

Trying to change 'eis' to 'because' does nothing but pervert the bible.

1. "Death beds" - it is an important life example to show the irrelevancy of a view that states that if one is not water baptized by full immersion, it is impossible to be saved.

I am not presenting an example of "a person trapped in a deserted island" that is mostly hypothetical, but that which we see in every neighborhood - hospitals. Old and frail people. Full immersion is impossible for them. Many cannot even leave their beds.

2. I baptized people by full immersion. "Nose not being covered" is a common life example that destroys the argument that the full immersion is necessary for salvation.

You are simply looking for loopholes, and this proves your theological bias against baptism. After the church began in Acts 2, can you cite just one example of a "death bed salvation" where one died and was saved without being baptized? Again, in Mk 16:16 Jesus ties 'belief' to 'baptism' with the coordinating conjunction "and" which means they cannot be separated, no matter how hard one looks for loopholes.

The best that you can possibly state is that you are not certain that water baptism is needed for salvation, since the overwhelming majority of Greek scholars oppose you.

Can it be that maybe your Greek needs improvement?
How well do you know Koine Greek?

Thanks,
Ed

The bible is very plain that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Just because you have a bias against it, does not remove its necessity for salvation. You have yet failed again to change the bible to fit your preconceived ideas on salvation.

 

[Edial]

The sum of God's thoughts on savation can and are known. The bible gives us God's thoughts on salvation and anyone can pick up a bible and go thru the NT and pick out all the verses that deal with salvation and get the "big picture". Contrast this to those who go thru and only pick out verses that have the word "believe" in it, while ignoring all other salvic verses, and they then declare salvation is by 'belief alone"

I presented in Psalms that God's sum of thoughts is not known to us.
However, we do indeed need to use the approach of comparing the verses that are given to us.
But, we cannot claim we know all there is to know about salvation of God.
We know that it is by grace through faith. That's about it.

1 Cor 13:8ff does not support your idea that the bible is not clear. ..... 1 Cor 13 is making reference that miracles would cease with the complete revelation of God.

It is not the miracles, but the prophecy, tongues and knowledge that will be stilled.
Please note how our current knowledge is grouped with several "cloudy" areas of information, such as prophecy and tongues.

1CO 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

It says that we know in part. The knowledge that we currently possess in incomplete. Now, we see but a poor reflection. And finally, "Now I know in part, then I shall know fully".

First, Paul told the Ephesians when ye read ye may understand, Eph 3:4 and be not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is, Eph 5:17. Hence God's plan of salvation for man CAN be understood, clearly.

EPH 3:2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Here it speaks of a certain mystery concerning the administration of God's grace.
It was revealed to the apostles and prophets. And by reading this we can have an understanding of their insight.
But it clearly does not speak of a full knowledge.


EPH 5:15 Be very careful, then, how you live--not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.

Here it speaks of understanding what God wants people to do. His "general" will.
But to know his specific will for us (you or me) we clearly do not fully know.
Therefore, there is no full knowledge of his will.

You continue to assert that the greatest majority of scholars support your idea on Acts 2:38, but you provide no evidence. The truth of the matter is the other way around. The KJV, NKJV, ASV, NIV, RSV, NASB, NLT, Webster's, Young's Literal Trans., Darby, HNV, among many, many other translation have "for" not "because". This is very odd, if your assertion is true. Even the NIV, as horrible as it is and with its Calvnistic bias does not even translate Acts 2:38 your way, why is this? In the KJV, the word "eis" appears over 1700+ times, yet not even the first time it is translated "because". Again, this seems very odd considering your assertion. I have already noted that well known Greek scholars like Thayer, Arndt/Gingrich, Wallace, Liddel/Scott nor any standard Greek lexicon I know of defines "eis' as 'because'.

1 Tim 1:16 "to everlasting life"--eis zoe aionios, according to your view, one would believe on Christ because one already has everlasting life.

Mt 26:28 "for the remission of sins"--eis aphesis hamartia (just like Acts 2:38). according to your view, Christ shed His blood because men's sins were already forgiven.

Trying to change 'eis' to 'because' does nothing but pervert the bible..

Let's try it from a different angle.


Ultimately, the true discussion is not how it is translated, but how it is interpreted.

You are interpreting that water baptism is a necessary condition to salvation in each and every case.
You are saying that it is an utter impossibility for anyone to be saved without performing a rite of a water baptism. You further added that one of the definitions of a true baptism is a fact that it is to be performed by a full immersion only.

As I mentioned before, it is indeed possible for a rite of a water baptism to be present during salvation.
But, it does not mean that without a water baptism salvation is null.

Let's look at this.

The Acts text presents this -

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."

Here Peter associates repentance and baptism with the forgiveness of sins.
This method is quite familiar to his hearers because they know of John quite well -

MK 1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

We also know that when one calls on the name of Jesus Christ one gets saved.
It is clearly not the ONLY method of salvation, since then the deaf and mute cannot be saved. It is important - not a "loophole".

1TI 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of manywitnesses.

Above, we see that salvation is when one publically confesses Jesus Christ.

And below, we see a person that is being baptozed while calling on his name.
And we know that "calling on his name" is one of the methods of salvation.


AC 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

So, back to the Acts.

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.

We see here that repenting and being baptised is being done in the name of Jesus Christ.
In the name of Jesus Christ is understood (and as I presented) to be that of a baptizee calling on his name while being "dunked".

This is one of the methods.
We know it is a method is because it does not say that it is the ONLY way (method) of salvation. And old and frail people also need salvation.

Another method is just calling on the Lord's name. We knoe it is just one of the methods is because it does not state that it is the ONLY way (method) of salvation and because the deaf and the mute also need salvation.

What you are doing is combining all the methodologies and making a complex web that produces a works-related and an imperfect "method" of salvation that excludes many.

There is ONLY one way to be saved -
JN 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

There is ONLY one name by which one can be saved -
AC 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Salvation is ONLY by God's grace -
EPH 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Salvation is ONLY by one response on our part - "Believe" -
AC 16:29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
AC 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved ...

That word "believe", the expresion of one's faith, takes various methologies, applications.

And these were SOME of what I listed in this post.

But, if we pile all the methodologies into one and build one common methodology that includes water baptism for a salvation - it is not a perfect methodology for it cannot apply to all humans in all conditions.

You are simply looking for loopholes, and this proves your theological bias against baptism. After the church began in Acts 2, can you cite just one example of a "death bed salvation" where one died and was saved without being baptized? Again, in Mk 16:16 Jesus ties 'belief' to 'baptism' with the coordinating conjunction "and" which means they cannot be separated, no matter how hard one looks for loopholes.

No loopholes, since I presented that I do not have a bias against baptism being present at a moment of salvation. Faith can be enlivened in various ways.

Old and frail people also need to be saved as well as the young and healthy ones.
If water baptism is the ONLY way (and the Bible never states that) then Christ did not die for the whole world, but onely for the ones that can be baptized.
Not a loophole, but an inconsistency.

The bible is very plain that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Just because you have a bias against it, does not remove its necessity for salvation. You have yet failed again to change the bible to fit your preconceived ideas on salvation.

I showed you that I do not have a bias against water baptism as a one of the modes of salvation. (I am neither saying that every instance of water baptism results in salvation).

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Schroeder]

Mark 16:16 is Mark's account of the great commission, and when Mark's account is combined with Matt's and Luke's we find that the baptism of the great commission is:

1-commanded
2-human administrator
3-last till the end of the world.
4-for remission of sins

Nowhere was baptism with the Holy Spirit commanded, humans cannot administer baptism with the Holy Spirit nor would it last till the end of the world, therefore the baptism of the great commission logically has to be water baptism.

neither passages speak or use the word command. though i would think it is strongly advised to be done, that is to spread the gospel. but we are NOT commanded to be saved. TWO the idea of a adminstrator is not in either as well. as FACT Christ is the administrater of our salvation. as it says no one goes to the Father except through me. ME is now in the Spirit which would suggest it is throught he Spirit. and matt. says I WILL BE WITH YOU UNTILL.... NOT do this ordanance untill. this is so very clear. and neither say for remmision of sins. and luke doesnt even use the word baptism at all.

Joel's prophecy of baptism with the Holy Spirit has been fulfilled, hence baptism with the Holy Spirit is no more, Peter, an apostle, proves this point. Jesus nailed the OT law to the cross and took it out of the way. Heb 1:1,2, Jesus, not Joel, speaks to us in these last days. Therefore Jesus took it out of the way and Peter proves it was fulfilled, they do not need your correction.

you do not understand this prophecy at all. i am not correcting them it is you i am correcting. ALL is ever person on earth. not just the few apostles and one houshold. Jesus took what out of the way. if you are suggesting IT is the holy Spirit baptism then man you are way way off the mark.

Eph 4:5 says there is ONE baptism. You unabashedly continue to contradict this verse.

though you think 1 cor 12:13 is not saying what it CLEARLy says. we are ALL baptised by theONE SPIRIT. into the ONE body. do this word ONE sound fimiliar to you. yes the ONE used in Eph 4:5.

Jesus said to believe and be baptized, He put these both BEFORE salvation, Peter put repentance and baptism BEFORE remission of sins, so yes, one MUST obey before he can obtain salvation. Again Jesus nor Peter need you to correct them. Therefore the only logically conclusion from your above post is that you simply have a false understanding of 1 Cor 2:12 and Rom 5

. he did indead. but it is not a command at all. it is a FACT. if you do not believe you will not receive the Spirit baptism Acts 15:8 eph 1:13 and many others. repentance includes belief does it not. how are you to repent if you dont believe first in something other then what you were believing in. HOw would I. you refuse to explain them correctly to me. it is rather clear. it says Christ did the ONE act of obediance and ONE act of righteousness. and 1 cor 2:12 says we can not discern or obey Christ if we do NOT have the Spirit. if he did this why do you insist it wasnt good enough for God.

Again, the baptism of the great commission is:

-commanded
-human adminitrators
-last till the end of the world
-for remission of sins

None of the above ever refer to baptism with the Holy Spirit, so you are maintaining a wrong position on baptism.

again read above. no they dont but again they arent in none of the passages you gave or deal with salvation or ordances. the first command is given to us as spreading the gospel. Which Paul says "i was not sent to baptize BUT to preach the gospel, how ever you look at it he says it is not dealing with the gospel which is about salvation. again CLEAR AS DAY. human administraters isnt in none of the passages. till the end is rather clear. LO I WILL BE WITH YOU UNTIL THE END. Again how if not in the Spirit. and for remision of sins is not in either. as for the Holy Spirit. not command because salvation is not commanded. stated fact you will get it once you believe. not given by humans but through Christ. (john the baptist said) it will last untill the end because that is how he is with us, and in the end he is coming back physically and it is for remission because it unites us to his sacrifice and One act of righteouseness and obediance, so God sees this instead of our vain attempts thorugh works. Hence saved through GRACE.

Neither Acts 10:43 nor 16:31 teach "belief only". You desperately need to learn the difference between "believe" and "believe only". You also need to study the Greek word for believe 'pisteou' which can mean "obey". You also need to learn that believe is used sometimes as s synecdoche. This is a perfect example of how you rip verses out with no regard to the context and no regard of how they should harmonize with other verses that deal with the same subject. And where does the bible say "works are works"? The bible speaks of different kinds of works, and as long as you fail to see this, you will be in the dark on this subject.

you are confusing yourself. the scriptures in rom 4 tells us what is a work and what is GRACE. you are the one ignoring the deffinitions given in scripture. if Christ tells me i am saved when i believe then did he LIE to me. when Christ tells us that GOD says the WORK we are to do is to BELIEVE on his son, is he and GOD tricking us.

 

[Edial]

neither passages speak or use the word command. though i would think it is strongly advised to be done, that is to spread the gospel. but we are NOT commanded to be saved. ...

Ha!
I did not see this one.

Good point, Schroeder.

Thanks,
Ed