Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[Kerwin]

I neither added nor took away. Someone did add a few verses to Mark along the way. The fact that those verses do not exist in the older known copies of Mark is pretty clear evidence of that and is a well known fact to those who have studied a little history related to the bible.

I do not actually address those passages in Mark for the simple reason I am not sure they are reliable. On the other hand I have no guarantee the earlier manuscripts that do not have those passages are reliable either. It really is irrelevant since there is plenty of evidence baptism was practiced by the apostles and others in the early church and that they considered it necessary. We even have evidence of why they considered it as necessary in Romans 6 and Collosians 2 and probably elsewhere.

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

And BTW It was not 'Gods Command' as you call it that no one add or take away from the book we call the bible. That was actually a line supposedly written by John in the book of revelation to which we have added 65 books so that rule was broken long ago and continues to be broken by anyone who owns a bible.

Actually I was speaking of a passage from the Law and it is talking about the commands of God. I think the passage in Revelations is speaking of only the prophecies revealed through John but my memory may be in error.

2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Sounds like something that was made up by a man with less than average intelligence.

If you want to accuse Jesus of having less than average intelligence then go right ahead but it makes you sound Elitist to say the least.


Could you please resolve a question that has come up? The question is do you believe the bible is the word of God?

 

[Evergreen48]

Some of the confusion is caused by translation as for reason unknown most translators do not translate the Greek word to its more literal English translation which would be to submerge, immerse, or to dip. There is also a minority opinion that it can be used in other situation to indicate washing as in the Jewish custom of washing before eating. What that washing entailed seems to be debatable and I have not researched it. I do know the Jews practice immersion of converts but their technique varies from that generally practiced by those of various Christian sects as the Baptizer is a witness and does not physically perform the baptism. The person being baptized also immerses themselves in living water more than one time. The Jewish practice does seem to differ from the baptism testified in scripture as the baptizer does not enter the water and both the baptizer and baptizee do in scriptue as you can see. It may be the Jews altered their practice because of anti-Christian bias or for another reason.

You've made a powerful case for immersion, and a powerful case against 'sprinkling' or 'pouring', and I agree. But this is beside the point I was trying to make. Be it 'immersion', 'sprinkling' or 'pouring', no one seems to know in what manner the baptizing was done. And it seems to me that if this ritual is a vital and needful thing to one's salvation, it would not have been left to haphazardness, or just hoping that it was done in the proper fashion, but some instructions would have been left as to the manner in which it was to be performed. For this I know, it is entirely impossible that even 20 men, let alone just 12, could baptize 3000 people in one day's time in the manner in which I was baptized. (Immersed beneath the water backward, and then brought back up out of the water to a standing position.) (Acts 2:41)

BTW, Re: 1 Peter 3:21. Keep in mind that not one of the souls that was on the ark was immersed in water, Not a one of them even got their feet wet. But the ark itself got 'baptized' by the 'sprinkling' or 'pouring' method.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I do not actually address those passages in Mark for the simple reason I am not sure they are reliable. On the other hand I have no guarantee the earlier manuscripts that do not have those passages are reliable either. It really is irrelevant since there is plenty of evidence baptism was practiced by the apostles and others in the early church and that they considered it necessary. We even have evidence of why they considered it as necessary in Romans 6 and Collosians 2 and probably elsewhere.

We have no guarantee that anything we read is reliable, especially books that were written over 1000 years ago.

There is also evidence that the apostles did not always understand what Jesus was trying to teach them.

Actually I was speaking of a passage from the Law and it is talking about the commands of God. I think the passage in Revelations is speaking of only the prophecies revealed through John but my memory may be in error.

There is no commandment that says thou shalt be baptised or else.

If you want to accuse Jesus of having less than average intelligence then go right ahead but it makes you sound Elitist to say the least.

Is that the best you got? Try to put words in my mouth but it does not help your case any. Jesus did not write a word of the bible. He did not say that baptism was required to be saved. He did forgive people without doing any rituals at all, he healed them, he taught them.

Could you please resolve a question that has come up? The question is do you believe the bible is the word of God?

Of course not. The bible is not "The Word Of God" It is a collection of books written by men, copied, translated, compiled, edited and translated some more by men. These men argued for years over which books should be included and which should be thrown away, many were destroyed and lost forever.

What we have is a collection of books choosen by a small group of men about God and about man and about the beliefs of these men and those around them.

 

[Kerwin]

Of course not. The bible is not "The Word Of God" It is a collection of books written by men, copied, translated, compiled, edited and translated some more by men. These men argued for years over which books should be included and which should be thrown away, many were destroyed and lost forever.

That of course explains our different positions. Personally, I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Still, I have another question. Do you believe Jesus is the Messiah testified of in the Hebrew Testament of scripture?

There is no commandment that says thou shalt be baptized or else.

There is a teaching in both Romans and Colossians as I previously pointed out. Jesus also said if you love me you will obey my teachings.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I agree that Acts 2:38 teaches the necessity of both repentance and baptism in the name of Christ (i.e., by His authority). They are requirements "for the remission of sins." I understand this phrase is synonymous with being saved. In short, to be saved is to have your sins taken away, and vice-versa. If you differ, then please explain how they are separate concepts.

That's what I told you, DRA. Salvation is itself the taking away of your sins, and baptism is part of that Salvation that you receive by faith alone.

Not sure where the idea that baptism is something received. In Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, and Acts 22:16 it is commanded, just as is faith or belief in Acts 16:31, and repentance in Acts 2:38. Each is something we must obey.

Acts 2:38 is a part of the whole Bible. It was not said in a context that is not related to the rest of the Bible. Acts 2:38 teaches that, even if you are baptized but did not repent, then your baptism does not save you. So the real meaning of baptism is in repentance. After all, the Bible clearly tells you what baptism is: It is the death with Christ to walk in newness of life. In other words, this is what REPENTANCE is:

I never said nor implied that Acts 2:38 is a stand alone passage. However, I disagree that "the real meaning of baptism is in repentance." Repentance is a change or heart or mind. In Acts 2:38, it carries the idea of turning from the mindset of rejecting Jesus (note context - 2:23) and accepting Him as both Lord and Christ (2:36), and includes the idea of turning from sin in general. Baptism is based on faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12-13. Note Hebrews 11:6. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, faith or belief is required with baptism (which is the idea expressed by Jesus in Mark 16:16). Like faith, I agree that baptism must be accompanied with repentance. I never said anything differently.

( Romans 6:3-4 )

So baptism is the external sign of repentant faith. If you don't have that repentance inside, then the outward sign is nothing. In other words, baptism is not necessary FOR Salvation. It is a necessary part of Salvation. As soon as you have a real repentant faith, then you have eternal life, just like the thief on the cross. And if you really received that Salvation, then you have received the real meaning of baptism, therefore no one can refuse the water of baptism for you if you are not yet baptized:

Not sure where/how the idea of "external sign" got involved in the discussion. Baptism is based on faith per Col. 2:12-13. Without it, the person only gets wet. However, with faith in the Lord, baptism is God's way of uniting a sinner with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to die to sin, be freed from it, and become alive to God. That's the idea expressed in Romans 6:3-11.

If as you say, a person has eternal life at the point of "real repentant faith," then it goes back to my original question: Can a person inherit eternal life while still in their sins? Note carefully Acts 2:38. Repentance and baptism are connected by the word "and," a coordinating conjunction connecting two equal parts. Thus, if repentance is required to have one's sins taken away, then baptism is also required. You seem to be trying to separate repentance from baptism and trying to place the forgiveness of sins between the two in this passage. Also, note Acts 22:16. There's no indication there that Saul (i.e., the apostle Paul) had his sins forgiven before baptism. Quite the contrary. He is told to be baptized to wash away his sins. Your rationale has his sins being washed away before God's word says they were.

As for the thief on the cross, he lived and died under the law of Moses. It wasn't until after Jesus' death that His testament (i.e., will) went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17. Borrowing from that thought, we can think of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 as the reading of Jesus' will.

( Acts 10:44-48 )

These people received Salvation even before they were baptized, because they had already received the meaning of baptism, i.e. REPENTANCE. And then they were baptized with water.

Disagree with your conclusion concerning Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. Note Peter's only conclusion in verse 47. His only conclusion was that the Jews couldn't forbid the Gentiles from being baptized as were the Jews. Therefore, Peter commanded the Gentiles to be baptized as were the Jews in Acts 2:38. You are trying to read things into the text that simply aren't there, specifically receiving the "meaning of baptism" is equivalent to actually being baptized.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I disagree with the idea that salvation is by "faith ALONE." Take the passage under consideration in its context. In verse 36, the apostle Peter, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave the conclusion to the message preached: Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Some of the Jews were convicted of their wrongdoing and asked what they should do (verse 37). Note Peter's response in verse 38. Did he say you can be saved by faith alone? Nope, but he told them what to do to have their sins taken away, which is another way of saying he told them what to do to be saved. Assuming they could have been saved by "faith ALONE," then Peter's response in verse 38 should have been, "You believe, therefore you are saved from your sins." Is that what Acts 2:38 says in your Bible?

Actually, when the Bible teaches Salvation by faith alone, people misunderstand it. They think "faith alone" means "dead faith alone". But in fact it is a living faith. When God works faith in you by His Holy Spirit, that means He gives you repentance and all what faith receives, i.e. Salvation. This Salvation is the Grace of God received by faith alone. This Grace gives you a new heart. This Grace, received by faith alone, makes you repent and get baptized.

Granted, the faith that God accepts is a living, active, and obedient faith per James 2:14-26. With that in mind, a command was given in Acts 2:38 for the Jews on Pentecost to have their sins taken away. Three thousand obeyed per verse 41. Therefore, who had that living, active, and obedient faith? The three thousand who obeyed the command of God, or those that didn't?

God's grace has been extended to all (Titus 2:11). However, all will not be saved per Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23. Some of the Jews in Acts 2 believed the message preached. It is implied or inferred by their response in verse 37. However, they weren't told just to have their sins taken away in verse 38, but to repent and be baptized. Don't overlook the coordinating conjunction. Both repentance and baptism are required. Both were commanded.

As faith is born from the seed of the Word of God, so Peter had to tell them the truth of Salvation: repentance for the forgiveness of sins: ( Luke 24:46-47 )

Luke 24:46-47 is parallel with Mark 16:15-16 and Matthew 28:19. All are accounts of what is commonly called the Great Commission. As explained before, repentance typically means turning from sin (especially where the rejection of Christ and His crucifiction were concerned).

Notice with me that, in this passage, our Lord didn't say "repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins". He only mentioned repentance, because, as I told you, baptism is closely related to repentance as it is the sign of that repentance.

Did you forget your previous comments about Acts 2:38 and how it is not a stand alone passage nor unrelated to other Scriptures? The same principle is also true for Luke's account of the Great Commission. You seem to have forgotten a basic principle of Bible interpretation: an understanding derived from one passage or text of Scripture must harmonize with other passages/texts (see Matthew 4:5-7), assuming that one truly desires to discern truth.

Now, if Peter didn't tell those people that they should repent and get baptized, then in what would they believe? In which proclamation? On what would their faith be built?

Oh ... but Peter did in Acts 2:38.

You can't receive the real meaning of baptism without faith. This faith is a repentant faith; that's its nature. You don't baptize all humans. You baptize those who have faith. So baptism also is received by faith alone. Saying that Salvation is by baptism ( which is another way to say that baptism is necessary for Salvation ) is like saying that you receive the real meaning of baptism by being baptized, which is wrong. Many are baptized, but not all are saved. We have clear examples in the Bible.

I agree that baptism must be accompanied with belief and repentance, but would also suggest not overlooking the necessity of confessing Jesus per Matthew 10:32-33 and Acts 8:37.

You keep trying to characterize baptism as something received. The Scriptures are clear that it is a command (e.g., Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, Acts 22:16). Why not just describe it the way God's word does?

So, in brief, Peter didn't tell those people to DO something to be saved. He told them to RECEIVE the Grace of God to be saved. And baptism is part of that Grace.

Acts 2:38 (NKJV) says: "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ...' ". This passage is a direct statement or command. Three thousand obeyed what they were told to do according to verse 41. Do you actually think they didn't do anything? Unless I'm mistaken, those that didn't receive the word were the ones that didn't do anything. One of us has the story backward.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Let's note the context of Romans 6: "3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Obviously, what is described here results in a new birth, synonymous with "newness of life." The process is explained more thoroughly in the verse that follow.

Did you notice how the passage begins? Let me underline what you need to notice:

"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" ( Romans 6:3 )

And as you quoted it:

Originally Posted by - DRA -

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

How many of them were baptized with water? Actually, ALL Christians are baptized. But how many of them are REALLY baptized INTO CHRIST JESUS? Only those who have real repentant faith. So the new birth happens by faith. It is not something you do. It is the Grace of God that you RECEIVE by faith alone.

Bottom line, according to Romans 6:3-11, the new birth occurs during baptism. And, since baptism is a command that must be obeyed to please God, then I suggest giving some additional thought to your reasoning. Note the first action required in Acts 22:16: "arise." It involves action or doing something. Three thousand did it in Acts 2. Cornelius and his household did it in Acts 10. And, Saul did it in Acts 22. The concept is not hard to understand.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Granted. Baptism is based on faith ... faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12-13. Without faith, one only gets wet. However, with faith, accompanied with repentance per Acts 2:38 and confession per Romans 10:9-10 & Acts 8:37, the blessing described in Romans 6 occur DURING baptism - NOT BEFORE.

No, that's not what Romans 6 is saying. Romans 6 is not talking about the TIME of baptism. It is talking about the MEANING of baptism. And, yes, if you don't have the meaning of baptism in you by faith, then you are not saved, because baptism is necessary in Salvation. But it is not necessary FOR Salvation. Only the Grace of God is necessary for Salvation, and you receive that Grace by Faith alone.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Timing is definitely under consideration in Romans 6. The Romans had been baptized. Therefore, they should not be continuing in sin according to verse 2. The apostle Paul reminds them of what occurred during baptism in the verses followed. Note verse 7. In baptism they were freed from sin. That means prior to baptism they were still in their sins, right? Give it some thought.

Not sure where this differentiation comes between "in Salvation" versus "FOR Salvation."

Your statement: "Only the Grace of God is necessary for Salvation, and you receive that Grace by Faith alone," can be captured by the old idea of "salvation by grace through faith alone," which clearly contradicts passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and Romans 6:3-11

By the way, if you say that the blessing of Romans 6 occurs only DURING water baptism, then you contradict the fact that Cornelius and those who were with him really RECEIVED the Gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized with water.



I continue in the next reply, if the Lord wills.

YAQUBOS†

There is NO contradiction between Peter's conclusion in Acts 10:47-48 and Romans 6:3-11.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Here's the way the Bible describes the washing away of Saul's/Paul's sins: "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Saul's response was: "... And he arose and was baptized (Acts 9:18). So, please explain how/why we are supposed to conclude that Saul's sins were washed away by faith alone.

Because the verse says that the washing happens by CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD. This is faith alone. And this faith alone receives whatever is in baptism. If you don't have this faith, you may take many showers and you remain in your sins.

Saul BELIEVED what he heard about Salvation, He called on the Name of the Lord, THEREFORE he arose and was baptized.

By the way, when it says that he had to call on the Name of the Lord, this doesn't mean that he had to go in the streets shouting to the Lord... You know that this means "having faith in the Lord".

Somehow, we keep failing to connect. After Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9, Saul was taken into Damascus where he spent the next three days without sight and without food or drink (verse 9). He also was praying during that time (verse 11). However, he was still in his sins. Jesus sent Ananias to Saul, and gave the instructions in Acts 22:16. First of all, Saul was to "arise." More specifically, he was told to "arise and be baptized and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord." Calling on the name of the Lord means to act by His authority (note Acts 4:7 & Colossians 3:17). In essence, Saul was told to do what Jesus authorized to have his sins taken away. Note also the expression "calling on the name of the Lord to be saved" in Acts 2:21 and the instructions given in Acts 2:38 for sins to be taken away (i.e., to be saved). The instructions are comparable to Acts 22:16. In summary, calling on the name of the Lord to be saved in both Acts 2:21 and 22:16 means doing what the Lord authorized to have one's sins washed away.

I agree that calling on the name of the Lord involves faith. Without faith, one simply cannot please God per Hebrews 11:6. That's an open and shut case.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I hear what you are saying, but the type/antitype relationship discussed in 1 Peter 3:20-21 is that eight souls were saved by water, and baptism now saves us. No, baptism doesn't save without Christ. It saves by giving us a clear conscience (by taking our sins away) through the resurrection of Christ (as explained in verse 21), which brings to mind Col. 2:12-13 and Romans 6:3-11 again. Baptism is God's way for us to be united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. That's how baptism saves us.

So baptism doesn't save us in itself. It is the Grace of God received by faith alone that saves us. And as baptism is part of that received Grace, then baptism is necessary in Salvation. But nowhere in the Bible it says that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation. In that case, no human would ever be saved without getting baptized, which is wrong, because all Old Testament believers were saved without getting baptized. It is the GRACE symbolized in the water of baptism that saves, not baptism itself. And Peter said it clearly in his passage: It is not the removal of dirt from the flesh.

Somehow, "faith alone" keeps getting inserted into every text. Faith is important, but inserting the word "alone" into the text is an injustice to God's word. Your reference to grace by faith alone brings to mind Ephesians 2:8, but on close examination it is apparent the word "alone" isn't in that passage. Somehow, it keeps getting inserted into passages. I have a suggestion. Why not just let the passages say what they say without inserting any words into the text? Could it be possible that God knew what He was doing when He inspired His word, and doesn't really need our "help" in tampering with passages by adding words into them that simply aren't there?

Note Acts 2:38. A command is given "for the remission of sins," which is synonymous with having one's sins taken away or washed away. Since sin is what separates one from God per Isaiah 59:2, to have one's sins taken away means that one is NOT separated from God - which implies/infers one is in favorable or saved condition with God. Another comparable passage is Romans 6:7. One is freed from sin in baptism. Like it or not, it's what the context teaches. It's discussing what occurs in baptism. Therefore, I still would like to know how one can be saved without having their sins taken away. If salvation occurs before baptism, the issue must be addressed.

As for those who lived under the old covenant, they will be judged by the old covenant. Today, we are under the new covenant - the gospel (or law) of Christ. It is the standard we are expected to live under.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

As for being in Christ, Galatians 3:27 describes how one gets "into Christ." It occurs in baptism. Therefore, the inference is that before baptism one is outside of Christ. Therefore, one can't be saved by "faith alone" separate and apart from baptism, unless one could be saved without being in Christ. See the reasoning?

Yes, baptism is a necessary part of Salvation. But it is not necessary FOR Salvation. I am not sure you are getting this biblical truth. You don't receive Salvation by baptism. If that was the case, then all baptized people would be saved. You receive Salvation by faith alone. And baptism is part of that Salvation that you receive by faith alone. In other words, and as you said above, what does it mean to be baptized without being in Christ? Also, what does it mean to be in Christ without receiving what is presented to you by baptism? Nothing. But if you don't receive the water for any reason outside your control, this doesn't mean you are not saved, because baptism is NOT necessary for Salvation.

I hope you got it this time.

Nope. I keep missing it. For starters, Galatians 3:27 doesn't say anything about "faith alone." Faith is mentioned in the previous verse, but the word "alone" is not in the text. I strongly suggest just letting the passages say what they say without reading words into them that simply aren't there.

If baptism is not necessary for salvation as you suggest, then according to Galatians 3:27 one can be saved without being "in Christ" or "putting on Christ." In essence, your position means one can be saved without the Lord. I suggest rethinking your position.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Can you direct me to a passage that says "FAITH ALONE" puts one into Christ?

I would say all the New Testament. But as for now, you may take the passages that we already quoted till now. They all say you can't do anything to earn your Salvation. It is by faith alone.

Sorry, but reading "alone" into all the passages that discuss faith isn't the same as producing a single passage that actually says we are saved by faith "alone."

Never said we "earn salvation." That idea totally contradicts the concept of God's grace. Note Luke 17:10. We are supposed to do the things commanded. However, after obedience is given, we still should consider ourselves unprofitable servants. It means even after complete submission and obedience to God's will, we haven't earned a thing. It implies/infers salvation is totally dependent upon God's grace. However, it doesn't mean we don't have to do the things commanded to be saved from our sins. Three thousand did as they were commanded in Acts 2:38 (see verse 41). And, Saul certainly obeyed what he was told to do to have his sins washed away. Did any of these "earn" salvation? Certainly not. But, they humbled themselves by accepting God's grace on His terms. I suggest we follow their example.

And take the story of the Ark! How were those people with Noah saved? By doing something while the Flood was happening? Did they swim? Did they build a boat according to human wisdom and art? Not at all! They only entered the Ark that GOD designed, and God closed the door.

I fully understand what you are saying, however ...

1 Peter 3:20 says: "... Eight souls were saved through water (NKJV)."
1 Peter 3:21 says: "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism ..."

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Don't have a problem with being in the ark and being in Christ type/antitype. However, Galatians 3:27 plainly states how one gets into Christ. And, it isn't by faith alone. Rather, it's by faith coupled with baptism, just like in Mark 16:16).

Baptism is ITSELF the being in Christ IF you have received it by faith. You are talking about baptism in a very formalist and ceremonial way. But that's not the Christian baptism.

Formalist and ceremonial way? Where did that come from? The baptism I am promoting is no different than what you read about in passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12,13,35-39, Acts 10:47-48, etc.

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." ( Galatians 3:27 )

The verse doesn't say that you are in Christ BY being baptized. It says that real believers are the ONLY people who were baptized into Christ. The verse is not talking about how you become in Christ. It is talking to people who were baptized into Christ by faith alone. What you did is to change the meaning of the verse from being about the meaning of real baptism to be about HOW you receive that meaning.

Oooops. There you go again. Reading "faith alone" into the text. Faith is there alright, but the word you're looking for isn't.

Baptism places one in Christ. That's what the passage declares. By looking at other passages, it is agreed that baptism must be coupled with faith in the Lord, repentance from sins, and confession of Jesus as Lord. However, those other necessary things doesn't change what Galatians 3:27 says about baptism.

The Bible clearly teaches that you receive all that by faith alone.

Okay, let's test your "faith alone" reasoning. Acts 2. The Holy Spirit came upon the 12 apostles just as the Lord promised. Peter preached a sermon and concluded it by declaring Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (verse 36). Some of the Jews are convicted of their sins and ask the apostles what they should do, which implies/infers they believed the message (verse 37)? Therefore, they were saved at that moment, right? So, Peter responds and says, "Don't worry, you are saved by faith alone," right? Is that what Acts 2:38 says? If it isn't, then it is evident there is a problem with your reasoning.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

For sure, Acts 2:38 combines repentance and baptism with the coordinating conjuntion "and." Repentance means to turn about, or around. Typically, where man is concerned, it means to turn from sin. While it is the demonstration of "living faith," it has a different meaning.

You can't repent without receiving the Grace of God. And you receive the Grace of God by faith alone.

As we saw before, Jesus mentioned repentance for forgiveness of sins without mentioning baptism, because baptism is the sign of repentant faith.

All the time, you are quoting the passages that show that baptism is necessary IN Salvation. But nowhere in the Bible it is said that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation.

The repentance God is looking for is prompted by godly sorrow per 2 Corinthians 7:10, and that sorrow is brought about by the Holy Spirit convicting sinners of their sins (John 16:8).

Baptism is "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38. The remission of sins is synonymous with being saved. Therefore, the idea is that baptism saves us - which is exactly the thought of 1 Peter 3:21.

Now, can you explain exactly the Scriptures that differentiate between "IN Salvation" versus "FOR Salvation?"

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Note Peter's conclusion, while under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, in Acts 10:47-48. Was His conclusion the Gentiles were saved? Is that what these passages say? I'm going to venture that this is not what these passages say. Rather, they say simply that none of the Jews there could forbid the Gentiles from being baptized in water in the name of the Lord. Two key thoughts: 1.) the baptism in the name of the Lord is indentified as being in water 2.) the baptism in the name of the Lord is synonymous with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38, which was "for the remission of sins." Therefore, the conclusion is that Cornelius and his household were baptized like those in Acts 2:38,41.

Yes, Cornelius and those who were with him were baptized just like those in Acts 2. But you didn't notice the important point: Cornelius and those who were with him ALREADY received the Gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized. The Holy Spirit does not dwell in a person who is not justified. The Holy Spirit does not dwell in a heart that is not washed from sin. Do you remember why the Holy Spirit could not come before Jesus Christ goes to the Father?

I guess the reason I missed the point you are making is because it isn't in the text. Just like you've been reading "faith alone" into the other texts, now you are reading "the Holy Spirit does Not dwell in a heart that is not washed from sin into the text." Is that Peter's conclusion in verse 47. To me, that's the conveniently overlooked part of this wonderful story of converstion. Cornelius and his household were the first Gentiles to have the word of God preached to them. The Spirit's arrival clearly let the Jews know that God was ready to receive the Gentiles. Nothing more. It's all the text suggests. The Jews there could not forbid the Gentiles from being baptized in the name of the Lord as the Jews were. As for where baptism fits into God's plan of salvation, other passages clearly describe it's role (e.g., Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-11).

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Disagree with your reasoning. Note the process described in Romans 10 ...

13 "For 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Reversed in order, the logic is you have to have preaching so people can hear the message and believe, and they have to believe in the Lord so they can call on Him to be saved. This proces demonstrates that belief and calling on the Lord aren't the same thing. Belief comes first, then it prompts calling on the name of the Lord. Let's apply this to Acts 22:16. Saul believed, and then was told to call on the name of the Lord by being baptized to wash away his sins. And, he obeyed. Relating it to Romans 10, Ananias preached to Saul, Saul believed the message, then Saul called on the name of the Lord by doing what he was told to wash away his sins. It's a great story!

Calling on the Name of the Lord describes what living faith is. Living faith calls on the Name of the Lord.

Calling on the name of the Lord for salvation means to come to him in obedience to the things He commanded to receive the salvation He offers.

What you did in the above quote is to say something like: "Faith lives by living. You can't have living faith without faith"... Well, THAT's what living faith is: it LIVES. And THAT's what living faith is: it calls on the Name of the Lord ALONE. It doesn't rely on good works to provide Salvation.

Ooops. There you go again trying to insert "faith alone" into the text. Sorry, but faith alone isn't taught there. Faith is, but not faith alone.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Okay, let do a practical application and test your conclusion. Acts 2. The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and Peter preached a sermon. Some of the Jews were convicted in their hearts, which implies/infers they believed the message in verse 37. Therefore, since they heard the word and could be saved by "FAITH alone," then they were saved at this point, right?

What do you mean by "at this point"? Salvation happened on the cross. Nobody saves himself by believing. We RECEIVE the Salvation that ALREADY is FINISHED by faith alone. We don't make our Salvation by some steps that we follow, as you are suggesting. It's not like: DO Faith + DO conviction + DO confession + DO baptism = Salvation. That's not it. You receive the already finished Salvation by faith alone, and that Salvation contains all the graces: repentance and all.

Okay, let's put this reasoning to the test. Salvation occurred at the cross. We don't have to do anything to receive it. There are no steps to follow. Now, back to Acts 2 and verse 38. Does your reasoning match what Peter here tells the Jews to do to have their sins taken away? Obviously, it doesn't. Therefore, something is amiss. I don't have any reason to suspect Peter's response was in error, seeing that he was under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit at this time. Therefore, I suspect we need to look elsewhere to figure out what is wrong.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Yes, that would be the right conclusion if the logic you presented is correct. However, the problem I have with this understanding is that you have them saved in verse 37, but their sins haven't yet been taken away as discussed in verse 38. Therefore, you have them being saved while still in their sins. Frankly, I don't see how that's supposed to work. Sins separate a person from God per Isaiah 59:1-2. Therefore, how can/will God save a person from which he is separated? I humbly suggest you diligently rethink your reasoning. Acts 2:38 clearly shows that salvation under the gospel of Christ doesn't occur by faith alone.

On the contrary, Acts 2:38 clearly shows that Salvation cannot be received in any other way than faith alone, because it is already finished on the cross. That's what Peter was telling those people in that sermon.

Let me make sure I understand this right ... Acts 2:38 is supposed to teach salvation by "faith alone?" C'mon. Faith or belief isn't even mentioned in the text. However, repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ are both "clearly" - no make that CLEARLY - commanded.

Let's consider the chronology of events in Acts 2. Jesus had already died on the cross some 51 days before, but the Jews there still did NOT have their sins removed. Some believed the message preached according to their response in verse 37, but their sins still had NOT been forgiven according to verse 38. Therefore, it should be rather obvious that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross didn't automatically take away their sins, nor were their sins forgiven at the point of faith "alone."

Do you have no reasoning to offer that will harmonize with the text of Acts 2?

Your problem is that you think faith is a mind-faith. But faith is the receiving of God's Grace that gives you a new nature and a new will. It's not only agreeing with some truths with your mind. Many Jews believed in Christ but were not saved, as the Bible clearly said ( see John 8 ) . What was their problem? It was that they didn't receive the TRUE Grace of God. They only had a head agreement with what they heard, but their wills were not changed.

If you don't really receive what is presented to you in baptism, then you are not saved, that's for sure. Baptism is necessary in Salvation.

I continue in the next reply by God's Grace.

YAQUBOS†

I turn to Hebrews 11 (the whole chapter) for a good working definition of faith. James 2:14-26 is another text commonly overlooked and/or undermined.

I have a few questions. There would have been thousands of Jews in Jerusalem during the Pentecost in Acts 2. A command was given in verse 38 to the Jews who asked what they should do in response to their guilt for rejecting Jesus and crucifying Him. Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized in verse 38. Three thousand obeyed in verse 41. Therefore, who had faith: the 3,000 who obeyed the Lord, or the thousands of other Jews who didn't obey? What if some Jews that didn't obey still claimed the blessings promised in verse 38 ... would they have a legitimate claim to the blessings promised? If we are agreed the 3,000 were faithful by doing as the Lord commanded, then wouldn't it mean they actually had to "do" what they were commanded? (On the same note, consider the command of Acts 16:31. Are we in agreement the jailer and his household needed to obey the command in order to be saved?) And, we are in agreement we need to do what the Lord says to do in order to be saved, does that mean salvation is "earned" (with Luke 17:10 also in mind)? Also, how does 1 Peter 1:22a fall into line with your reasoning?

 

[- DRA -]

Orginally Posted by - DRA -

No problem with Acts 15:9. It refers to the conversion of the Gentiles in Act-ps10. I've previously commented on that conversion. However, since we are talking about faith, James 2:14-26 discusses the faith that pleases God. Note verse 21. Abraham's faith prompted him to obey God (i.e., do what He commanded). Thinking back to Acts 2, who truly had faith in God ... the 3,000 that obeyed what they were told to do in verse 38 (see verse 41), or all those that didn't obey what they were told in verse 38? I believe those who had the faith that pleases God did what they were commanded to do, and afterward received the blessings God promised.

So obedient faith ( = living faith ) alone cleanses the heart from sin. It is not faith + obedience. It is obedient faith. James 2 doesn't say that Abraham was justified by faith + works. It clearly says that he was justified by works, meaning by obedient faith. Read James 2 again, and see if it ever says that anyone was justified by faith PLUS works. It never says that.

I agree. Abraham was justified by works - meaning by obedient faith. That's exactly why I brought up James 2:21 and connected it with Acts 2:38,41 ... inquiring about the difference between the 3,000 that were obedient and those that weren't. I am of the understanding that those who did NOT obey had no legitimate claim to the blessings promised. However, those that obeyed received the blessings (i.e., forgiveness of sins or salvation). Can we agree that we do what God says to be saved from our sins?

So going back to Acts 15:

"and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith." ( Acts 15:9 )

So the cleansing of our hearts happens by faith alone. And this faith is a living repentant obedient faith, because it has received the Grace of God. The Grace of God makes you ALIVE, not dead. The Grace of God doesn't only justify you; it also sanctifies you.

Oooops. As previously discussed, you keep inserting the word "alone" whenever you see the word "faith." Acts 15:9 does NOT say the cleansing of the hearts happens by faith alone, rather it happens by faith. Granted, it is the living, repentant, obedient faith that pleases God, but that is understand by harmonizing what Acts 15:9 says along with other relevant passages (e.g., James 2:14-26, Acts 8:12, etc.), not by reading words into the text of Acts 15:9 that aren't there.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

As for grace, it has been extended to all people (Titus 2:11). However, since all won't be saved (Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23), salvation cannot be by grace alone. As for faith alone, it has been discussed several times previously in this post.

Salvation is by Grace alone, and this is clear in the Bible. Yes, the Grace of God appeared to all men, and it brought Salvation to all men. ALL may receive that Grace by faith and be saved. But if they don't receive that Grace, this doesn't mean that the Grace of God is unable to save them. If they received it, they would all be saved. It is strange to think that, as you didn't eat the bread, then the bread cannot fill your hunger. Nobody's saying that the Grace of God saves you without faith. But THAT's what Grace is: You don't do anything to be saved; you just RECEIVE that Grace by faith. So Salvation is by Grace alone, not by something you add on that Grace. You receive it as it is, without adding anything on it, and you are saved. And it is enough to receive it to be saved; so Salvation is by faith alone. No need to do anything in addition to receiving it. The Grace of God does all. God gives you in Christ GRACE UPON GRACE. You don't need to invent the other graces; they all come upon the Grace of Salvation.

Sorry, but there's simply no logical way to declare that salvation is by "grace alone" in light of Titus 2:11 and Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23. The irony is that on one hand you declare that salvation is by grace alone, and on the other a person has to have the faith to receive that grace. Faith/belief is a command that must be obeyed per Acts 16:31. Going back to Acts 2, you didn't answer my earlier question ... who was saved: those who obeyed the command given in verse 38 (i.e., the 3,000 in verse 41), or those that didn't obey? If the 3,000, then it is evident they weren't saved by grace alone, because they had to obey the command given in order to obtain the blessings promised.

Orginally Posted by - DRA -

Really? Jesus baptized them in water? Are you sure? Note John 4:1. It says Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. But, also note the next verse, which says,
NKJV (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)
NASV (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were)
NIV although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
NRSV —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized—

They were baptizing IN HIS NAME. I wish you knew what it means to baptize in Christ's Name...

So Judas was baptized by Jesus. Judas was a baptized disciple of Jesus Christ, and yet he was the one who betrayed Him, and he didn't really believe in Him. And many of those who were baptized in the Name of Jesus were not true believers.

YAQUBOS

Agreed. They baptized in His name. I know what it means. However, you gave the impression Jesus Himself was doing the baptizing. Thanks for clarifying your reasoning.

 

[- DRA -]

Wow, nobody gives a short, simple response around here, do they?

The short response is found in Jesus' command to His apostles to take the gospel to the world: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" ... (Mark 16:16a - NKJV).

The longer responses are given when the denials and rejections of Jesus' teaching are declared.

 

[Soul Searcher]

The short response is found in Jesus' command to His apostles to take the gospel to the world: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" ... (Mark 16:16a - NKJV).

The longer responses are given when the denials and rejections of Jesus' teaching are declared.

A passage which is not in the older copies of Mark and likely was added by a different author at a later date. Should be viewed with skepticism at the very least and outright forgery at worst.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

The short response is found in Jesus' command to His apostles to take the gospel to the world: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" ... (Mark 16:16a - NKJV).

The longer responses are given when the denials and rejections of Jesus' teaching are declared.

A passage which is not in the older copies of Mark and likely was added by a different author at a later date. Should be viewed with skepticism at the very least and outright forgery at worst.

Greetings.

I have been away from this discussion for awhile, and am currently trying to catch up with the posts. Right now, I am about two pages behind, but had gleaned over the posts enough to pick up on the concern over the latter part of Mark 16. It comes up periodically, and is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. I had planned on getting to it as I reviewed the posts in more detail, but since you brought up the issue to me, I'll go ahead and address it now.

I understand your concern about the last 12 verses of Mark 16 not being in the two oldest Greek manuscripts: the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. However, there's more to the story that should be considered before jumping to rash conclusions:
1.) Who really believes the Gospel (the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ) ends at Mark 16:8? If so, Mark's account of the gospel story ends with the disciples being told of the resurrected Lord, but being fearful and afraid because they haven't seen Him and don't know for sure if He's been resurrected. Does such an account of the gospel message agree or harmonize with Matthew's, Lukes', and John's account? Obviously, there's more to the story than where the story leaves off at Mark 16:8.
2.) Are the two Greek Codexes the only evidence available for the early time period in which they fall? No. The majority of Old Latin manuscripts, which either predated or were contemporary with the two Greek manuscripts under discussion, contained the last 12 verses of Mark 16. Also, we should point out that the scribe of the Codex Vaticanus left a sizeable blank space between Mark 16:8 and the ongoing text. Why leave the blank if the book of Mark ended at that point?

For a more thorough discussion of the ending of Mark 16, I suggest considering this study: http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html

 

[- DRA -]

Actually the brief answer is very easy to understand. That answer is No.
It is the long winded responses that are impossible to understand.

If what you say is true - baptism is not necessary to be saved - then it also must be true that a person can be saved without having their sins taken away (per Acts 2:38), washed away (per Acts 22:16), or being united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection where one dies to sin, is freed from it, and becomes a new creature (per Romans 6:3-11). Can you explain how a sinner is saved from his/her sins while remaining in those sins? By the way, please give the short version - no "long winded responses" should be necessary, right?

 

[- DRA -]

No one seems to be able to tell for sure what the proper mode of baptism is. Differemt denominations have different opinions as to how this ought to be performed. Some say 'sprinkling' is the proper form or mode, while others declare vehemently that we must be immersed completely, and are just as passionate about there being present at this occasion, someone who does the immersing. It seems to me that if baptism is necessary to anyone's salvation, how it is performed would be of great importance, and a mistake or error in understanding could and would effect grave consequences to those who err regarding this. (And it is obvious that many do err, as when there is disagreement on something, someone has to be right and someone must be wrong.) My personal testimony on this is that I was just as 'saved' as I was ever going to be before I was ever baptised.

The proper mode of baptism is easily discerned if folks "speak as the oracles [words] of God" per 1 Peter 4:11a. It's those "I think so's," the "I want it to be so's," and "this is my personal testimony so's" that complicate matters. The Koine Greek word for baptism means to immmerse, dip, or plunge. Acts 8:35-39 details baptism pretty clearly. Romans 6:3-11 also portrays baptism as a burial.

I have a question about the conversion of the 3,000 in Acts 2:41. Who received the blessings promised in verse 38, the 3,000 that obeyed or those that didn't? Is it sound reasoning to conclude that any that didn't obey the command given in verse 38 were entitled to the blessings promised (i.e., the remission of sins), or is it sound logic to conclude those who obeyed the command given in verse 38 were entitled to the blessings promised in that passage? My personal testimony is the 3,000 that obeyed what they were told to do were saved from their sins and added to the Lord's church by the Lord, and I have followed their example in accepting the gospel of Christ (note Acts 2:38, 41, & 47).

 

[- DRA -]

The Gospel [The Good News] is that Jesus is the saviour of the world, of all men, women, children.

Baptism is a ritual preformed by men.

Hmmm ... Acts 8:35. Philip preached Jesus. In response, the eunuch inquired about being baptized in water. The inference is that to preach Jesus is to preach baptism in water. The connection? Baptism is based on faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12. Therefore, those with faith see God's working in uniting the sinner with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Those with no faith or with an erroneous understanding of God's word undermine God's word and declare baptism is only a ritual of men. With these things in mind, note Philip's response to the eunuch's inquiry about baptism in verse 37: "If you believe with all your heart, you may" (NKJV). That belief wasn't in a ritual of men, but in the saving power of God and His ability to unite the sinner with the blood shed by His Son.

 

[- DRA -]

... 1 Peter 3:21. Keep in mind that not one of the souls that was on the ark was immersed in water, Not a one of them even got their feet wet. But the ark itself got 'baptized' by the 'sprinkling' or 'pouring' method. [/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]

1 Peter 3:20 says (NKJV), "... Eight souls, were saved through water."
1 Peter 3:21 says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism ...".

The point wasn't that the Noah and his family on the ark were baptized, but that the waters of the flood foreshadowed baptism. Water saved them, baptism saves us. That's the point.

 

[- DRA -]

... I tend to beleive what makes the most sense given a situtation. Somehow "Let this preacher man dunk you in the water or else burn in hell for all eternity" does not make any sense at all. Sounds like something that was made up by a man with less than average intelligence.

Of course baptism was a good thing in those times as for many it would be the closest they came to a bath that year.

Let's see now ... the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4. Under the direct guidance of the Spirit, the apostle Peter commanded repentance and baptism "for the remissions of sins" (i.e., to be saved) in verse 38. Therefore, if your above average intelligent approach is correct, the Holy Spirit was just a man who made up the commandment in verse 38.

Also, since Jesus sent Ananias to Saul, and Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, then like the Holy Spirit, Jesus was just a man who made up the idea that baptism could actually wash away Saul's sins ... assuming your above average intelligent approach is correct.

Of course, the above average intelligent logic is that God was really more interested in the personal hygiene of these men (i.e., they needed to bathe) than their spiritual needs.

Granted, those being baptized without faith per Colossians 2:12-13 should take a bar of soap and go ahead and bathe, because it will be the only benefit they get from the experience.

 

[YAQUBOS]

So Jesus did not really mean it when commanded his 11 disciples to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them to obey all of Jesus' commands.

You may believe that if you choose but I choose to believe Jesus meant what he said.

And Jesus never said that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation, although He clearly said that baptism is necessary IN Salvation.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

I neither added nor took away. Someone did add a few verses to Mark along the way. The fact that those verses do not exist in the older known copies of Mark is pretty clear evidence of that and is a well known fact to those who have studied a little history related to the bible.

No verses were added to the Gospel according to Mark.

If you don’t know what “older” manuscripts are, you can open a thread about that. In this thread, we are studying about Christian baptism. And the passages that talk about baptism are so many, that the passage from Mark that you are mentioning is only a little part of them.

And BTW It was not 'Gods Command' as you call it that no one add or take away from the book we call the bible. That was actually a line supposedly written by John in the book of revelation to which we have added 65 books so that rule was broken long ago and continues to be broken by anyone who owns a bible.

Was the following a line written by John:

“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” ( Deuteronomy 4:2 )

And what about the following:

“Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:5-6 )

So do not add to ANY part of the Word of God, and not only to the Book of Revelation. The whole Bible is the Word of God.

Good for you. I tend to beleive what makes the most sense given a situtation. Somehow "Let this preacher man dunk you in the water or else burn in hell for all eternity" does not make any sense at all. Sounds like something that was made up by a man with less than average intelligence.

Of course baptism was a good thing in those times as for many it would be the closest they came to a bath that year.

Christian baptism is not a bath. If you knew what true repentance is, you would not call baptism with that word.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

[BIBLE][/BIBLE]

BTW, Re: 1 Peter 3:21. Keep in mind that not one of the souls that was on the ark was immersed in water, Not a one of them even got their feet wet. But the ark itself got 'baptized' by the 'sprinkling' or 'pouring' method.

That shows a deep misunderstanding of what the Ark and the water of the Flood represented. Actually, the old sinful humanness ( those who were NOT in the Ark ) were literally IMMERSED in the waters of the Flood, as a picture of the IMMERSION of the old self ( the flesh ) in the water of baptism. The Ark is a picture of the New Adam, Jesus Christ, in whom we are a new humanness, and this new humanness CANNOT die again, so it is not under the waters, just like the Ark and those who were in it.

Some of the biggest confusions come from a misunderstanding of the Bible. And those misunderstandings come from a lack or weakness of faith that does not allow the Bible to explain itself, and rather tries to explain the Bible by human speculations.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Of course not. The bible is not "The Word Of God" It is a collection of books written by men, copied, translated, compiled, edited and translated some more by men. These men argued for years over which books should be included and which should be thrown away, many were destroyed and lost forever.

What we have is a collection of books choosen by a small group of men about God and about man and about the beliefs of these men and those around them.

Well, we have seen that the Bible is the Word of God, and we have seen how JESUS Himself said that the Bible is the Word of God. Go here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6398365&page=2

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†