Is WATERBAPTISM part of salvation?

rusted sin · Feb 8, 2004

This is what I believe about Baptism and your salvation:

Although the Bible does say that you should be baptised [Colossians Chapter 2 (key 12)] you also get the verse (Ephensian 2:8) which talks about God's grace saving us and not our own works. From perspective Baptism would be something that 'we' could do to reach heaven not. The bible doesn't say it is required, but it is requested from God, but so is a total life of purity (pure mouth, pure mind, pure actions) but we don't keep those are we then not getting into heaven? 'NO' (and Thank God for that)

Should we get baptised: Yes, after all it is asked of us from God. If we desire to serve God, then we should do as he asks.

thereselittleflower · Feb 9, 2004

greeker57married said:
Dear Michelle,

Dear Michelle,
I respect your convictions, I can see that you have strong beliefs and you are not afraid to state those beliefs. I am a Southern Baptist. Baptist believe in Sola Scripture, that is the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. I would like to help clarify what Titus 3:5 is saying.

"But According to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit". The Word washing is the Greek word "loutron" it means a bathing or bath. It can be used literally to refer to a literal bath or washing. It is a reference to water baptism, but Paul is using it here as a picture of the new birth. It is the symbol before the reality, The Holy Spirit does the renewing. The new Christian submits to Baptism after the New birth to picture it for man. Outward symbols does not change the inner person.

In 1Peter 3:21 Peter says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Baptism is the antitype of Noah's deliverance by water. That is what the Greek word antitupon means the antitype corresponding to the deliverance of Noah's family. It is only a vauge picture of it. The saving by Baptism that Peter mentions is only symbolic as Peter hastens to explain. "NOT THE PUTTING AWAY OF THE FILTH OF THE FLESH. pETER HERE DENIES bAPTISMAL REGENRATION OR FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

I think you need to read this passage again . . an antitype is the fullfillment of the type . . it is what the type is lookint forward towards . . and it is the reality of the type that foreshadows it . .

And this passage . . "NOT THE PUTTING AWAY OF THE FILTH OF THE FLESH." IS in NO WAY a deial of Baptismal Regeneration!! I am always astounded when I hear someone say this!! Peter is saying that baptism in water is not merely a bath like you would take to get dirt off your skin!!! This is AFFIRMING Baptismal Regneration by saying what it is NOT . . it is a mere bath!! And we are not save simply because water washes away dirt from off someone's skin . . the cleansing happens inside . . instead, it gives us a good conscience before God . .

Let's look at what it really says:

1Pe 3:21

The like figure whereunto evenbaptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Let's see how different translations handle this verse:
1Pe 3:21

(BBE) And baptism, of which this is an image, now gives you salvation, not by washing clean the flesh, but by making you free from the sense of sin before God, through the coming again of Jesus Christ from the dead;

(CEV) Those flood waters were like baptism that now saves you. But baptism is more than just washing your body. It means turning to God with a clear conscience, because Jesus Christ was raised from death.
(DRB) Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(EMTV) which as an antitype, baptism now also saves us--(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(GNB) which was a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you. It is not the washing off of bodily dirt, but the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(HNV) This is a symbol of immersion, which now saves you--not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah,

(ISV) Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(KJVA) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

(LITV) Which antitype now also saves us, baptism (not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

(YLT) also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

[/quote]When one puts a trusting faith into Jesus Christ they are saved. Man is a sinner and cannot live a good enough life to merit salvation. This is why Christ died for us in our place he took the punishment for our sins. Romans 3:23, 6:23, Rom 5:8. Man can do nothing to save himself, he must trust the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

He must by faith recieve Christ into His life. Ephesians 2:8-9.

God Bless
John
[/QUOTE]
That is right . .and part of that faith is putting your money where your mouth is and being baptized for the remissin of sins . .

God does not command us to do something which has no real meaning . . it is not enough to say, we should get baptized because God told us to do so . . there is a REASON WHY He tells us to do so and He never coimmands us to do something unless there is a darn good reason to do it . .

So there is a REAL REASON to get baptized . .and it is not a take or leave it proposition . . or one of "We have to do it because God said so, but we don't know why we HAVE to do it . . "

We KNOW why we have to do it. . it is this is how we are Born Again . .it washes away our sins . . Baptism does now save us!

"I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins."

Thsi is part of the Nicene Creed that everyone who puts a Christian icon by their name here at CF agrees to . . and it means exactly what it says . .

Peace in Him!

greeker57married · Feb 9, 2004

Dear Thereselittleflower,

Yes I am saved and the blood of Jesus washed away my sins not water. I was saved ( Rom. !0:13) I am being saved (Rom. 4:6) And I shall be saved,( Rom. 4:8, 8:29-30). The Believer was saved from the penalty of sin, he is being saved from the power of sin(sanctification), he shall be saved from the presence of sin (glorification) What a glorious destiny for the saint!

Here is comments from A.T. Robertson A Greek Scholar:

1Pe 3:21 -

Which also (ho kai). Water just mentioned.

After a true likeness (antitupon). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noahs deliverance by water. For baptisma see note on Mat_3:7. For antitupon see note on Heb_9:24 (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (antitupa) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (tuponHeb_8:5) for the earthly. So here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noahs family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful.

Doth now save you (humas nun sōzei). Simplex verb (sōzō, not the compound diasōzō). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Rom_6:2-6), not actual as Peter hastens to explain.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (ou sarkos apothesis rupou). Apothesis is old word from apotithēmi (1Pe_2:1), in N.T. only here and 2Pe_1:14. Rupou (genitive of rupos) is old word (cf. ruparos, filthy, in Jam_2:2; Rev_22:11), here only in N.T. (cf. Isa_3:3; Isa_4:4). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Heb_9:13.). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin.

But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God (alla suneidēseōs agathēs eperōtēma eis theon). Old word from eperōtaō (to question as in Mar_9:32; Mat_16:1), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senates approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether eis theon (toward God) be taken with eperōtēma or suneidēseōs.

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (di' anastaseōs Iēsou Christou). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Rom_6:2-6). See 1Pe_1:3 for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

thereselittleflower · Feb 9, 2004

greeker57married said:
Dear Thereselittleflower,

Yes I am saved and the blood of Jesus washed away my sins not water. I was saved ( Rom. !0:13) I am being saved (Rom. 4:6) And I shall be saved,( Rom. 4:8, 8:29-30). The Believer was saved from the penalty of sin, he is being saved from the power of sin(sanctification), he shall be saved from the presence of sin (glorification) What a glorious destiny for the saint!

Here is comments from A.T. Robertson A Greek Scholar:

1Pe 3:21 -

Which also (ho kai). Water just mentioned.

After a true likeness (antitupon). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noahs deliverance by water. For baptisma see note on Mat_3:7. For antitupon see note on Heb_9:24 (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (antitupa) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (tuponHeb_8:5) for the earthly. So here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noahs family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful.

Doth now save you (humas nun sōzei). Simplex verb (sōzō, not the compound diasōzō). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Rom_6:2-6), not actual as Peter hastens to explain.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (ou sarkos apothesis rupou). Apothesis is old word from apotithēmi (1Pe_2:1), in N.T. only here and 2Pe_1:14. Rupou (genitive of rupos) is old word (cf. ruparos, filthy, in Jam_2:2; Rev_22:11), here only in N.T. (cf. Isa_3:3; Isa_4:4). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Heb_9:13.). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin.

But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God (alla suneidēseōs agathēs eperōtēma eis theon). Old word from eperōtaō (to question as in Mar_9:32; Mat_16:1), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senates approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether eis theon (toward God) be taken with eperōtēma or suneidēseōs.

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (di' anastaseōs Iēsou Christou). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Rom_6:2-6). See 1Pe_1:3 for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

Let me ask you this . .

Was Noah really saved when the great flood came? Or was he only symbolically saved?

We see a real physcial water attributed to a real, physical salvation . . and Peter begins to compare it to the real physical water of Baptism, but the filth and the flesh are not to be considered real, physical filth and flesh?

We are speaking of real,literal things, but suddenly the filth and flesh are now symbolic of sin and our sin nature?

The problem is that the Greek word translated "filth" is used only one time in the bible . . here in this verse . . it does not give us a lot to go on as far as biblical usage goes . .

It could be taken either way . . as can the word translated "flesh" . . but what we are faced with is how to interpret these two words?

I said in another thread, and will say it again here - we err greatly if we think that our theology comes from the bible . .

How we interpret the bible comes from our theology . . none of us can avoid this . . . and here is a perfect example in this verse . .

So, looking further at this verse in context . . it says that Baptism now saves us . . by the ressurection of Jesus . .

Baptism has to be coupled with the death and ressurection of Jesus or it is meaningless . . . if one just baptizes without Jesus, then baptism is no better than washing the skin with water . .

"by the ressurection of Jesus Chrsit "

the ressurection of Jesus becomes the Channel through which Baptism saves us . it becomes the channel of the act . . baptism apart from this 'channel' does nothing .. it merely cleans the filth from the flesh and does not save us . .

But when it saves us, thruogh the channel of the resurrection of Jesus, we have the answer of a good conscience toward God . .

If we are not saved by Baptism, then there is no good conscience towards God associated with it . .

If we are saved before hand, then why do we need baptism? We already would have a good conscience before God . . .

So, lets look at what it says about our conscience . . it tells us that Baptism saves us because it gives us a clean conscience before God . .

But if we are to have a good conscience towards God, sin has to be washed away . . That Peter links a good conscience towards God tells us that something happens in Baptism to effect this good conscience towards God . . the only thing that effects this is the removal of sin . .

It has been the consistant teaching of the Church since the beginning that Baptism washes away sin . .

Peace in Him!

!

greeker57married · Feb 10, 2004

Let me ask you this . .

Was Noah really saved when the great flood came? Or was he only symbolically saved?

We see a real physcial water attributed to a real, physical salvation . . and Peter begins to compare it to the real physical water of Baptism, but the filth and the flesh are not to be considered real, physical filth and flesh?

We are speaking of real,literal things, but suddenly the filth and flesh are now symbolic of sin and our sin nature?

The problem is that the Greek word translated "filth" is used only one time in the bible . . here in this verse . . it does not give us a lot to go on as far as biblical usage goes . .

It could be taken either way . . as can the word translated "flesh" . . but what we are faced with is how to interpret these two words?

I said in another thread, and will say it again here - we err greatly if we think that our theology comes from the bible . .

How we interpret the bible comes from our theology . . none of us can avoid this . . . and here is a perfect example in this verse . .

So, looking further at this verse in context . . it says that Baptism now saves us . . by the ressurection of Jesus . .

Baptism has to be coupled with the death and ressurection of Jesus or it is meaningless . . . if one just baptizes without Jesus, then baptism is no better than washing the skin with water . .

"by the ressurection of Jesus Chrsit "

the ressurection of Jesus becomes the Channel through which Baptism saves us . it becomes the channel of the act . . baptism apart from this 'channel' does nothing .. it merely cleans the filth from the flesh and does not save us . .

But when it saves us, thruogh the channel of the resurrection of Jesus, we have the answer of a good conscience toward God . .

If we are not saved by Baptism, then there is no good conscience towards God associated with it . .

If we are saved before hand, then why do we need baptism? We already would have a good conscience before God . . .

So, lets look at what it says about our conscience . . it tells us that Baptism saves us because it gives us a clean conscience before God . .

But if we are to have a good conscience towards God, sin has to be washed away . . That Peter links a good conscience towards God tells us that something happens in Baptism to effect this good conscience towards God . . the only thing that effects this is the removal of sin . .

It has been the consistant teaching of the Church since the beginning that Baptism washes away sin . .

Peace in Him!

!

__________________

Q: "Are you Saved?" * * * * * * * *

A: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:58), Im also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:910, 1 Cor. 3:1215). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:1113)."

Dear Thereselittleflower,

You are an intellgent person with deep convictions. I respect your viewpoint.

The Greek Word for filth is rupou Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives this word study:

"rupou" fr. Hom. down, filth. The Greek word ruparia comes from ropou which means, filthness , metaph. of wickedness of moral defilement, Jam. 1:21. The Greek word ruparos which comes from rupou means filthy, dirty: prop. of clothing, Jas. ii.2. metaph. defiled with iniquity, base, [A.V. filthy]:Rev. xxii.11. The verb form of rupou, rupoo means 1. to make filthy, defile, soil. Hom. 2. intrans. for rupaoto be filthy: morally, Rev.xxii.11." (The New Thayer'sGreek-English Lexicon)

rupos or rupou Gen. can means something literally filthy as clothing or symbolically as moral filthiness or iniquity. Two of the three times it is used in the Scriptures listed in the Word study rupou refers to moral filthiness or wickness. Based on this I see no reason according to the context of 1Peter 3:21, why it cannot be translated moral wickedness or iniquity. I thank based on this that the Greek word flesh sarkos can refer to the sinful nature of man. Thayer says this: 4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
In the context of 1Peter 3:18 it has reference to man's spiritual defilement.

Simply put baptism does not effect inner cleansing and forgiveness of sin.

Your future tense of salvation is not very secure. "and I have the hope that I will be saved." I praise The Lord I know now that I am saved and if I were to die, I would spent eternity with Jesus Christ."

Rom 8:29 Because whom he has foreknown, he has also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he should be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rom 8:30 But whom he has predestinated, these also he has called; and whom he has called, these also he has justified; but whom he has justified, these also he has glorified.

The Greek is saying," Whom he has predestinated, these very same ones also he has called, and whom he has called, these very same ones also he has justified; but whom he has justified, these very same ones also he has glorified."

This is a five link chain of security. He takes the saint from predestinated to being glorified without losing a single one. Praise God glorious destiny of the saints!

1Co 1:17 For Christ has not sent me to baptise, but to preach glad tidings; not in wisdom of word, that the cross of the Christ may not be made vain.

God Bless
John

Bro_Brown11233 · Feb 10, 2004

Perhaps there is no teaching of the New Testament over which more controversy has raged than the subject of baptism. This is not the case because the New Testament is ambiguous on the subject, nor because men are incapable of understanding its teaching. As we explore this subject it shall be our premise that God is the author of baptism through the teachings of the Bible. In the final analysis, it makes little difference what any man says on the subject, but it makes all of the difference what God says. If the teaching of the New Testament on the subject of baptism is unimportant, then how can anyone logically contend that the teaching of the New Testament on any subject is important? The Lord, through his word, must be allowed to tell us what both the action and purpose of baptism are.

THE "WHAT' OF BAPTISM

In the minds of most people, baptism is an act that may be administered in either of three ways: sprinkling water on the candidate, pouring water on the candidate or immersing the candidate in water. Some English dictionaries state that baptism is administered by either of these three actions.1 However, it must be remembered that modern English dictionaries reflect the current usage of words, rather than their original meanings.

Consider the following evidence in the New Testament, apart from the original meaning of the word "baptism." The baptism of John, which involved the same action as the baptism commanded by Christ and preached by the apostles, required "much water" (John 3:23). A case of baptism is described in Acts 8:38-39: "And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water. . . " The apostle Paul twice uses the term "burial" to describe what takes place when one is baptized (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12). This evidence obviously points to only one action -- immersion.

A study of the Greek word for "bapatism" yields the same conclusion. "Baptize" and its related forms was not an English word, originally. It was transferred into English directly from the New Testament Greek word, baptidzo. One may consult any standard lexicon of the Greek New Testament and learn that baptidzo means to dip, plunge, submerge or immerse when used literally.2 When used figuratively (e.g., Mark 10:38), it means to overwhelm. If this Greek word were translated, rather than merely transliterated, the New testament would read "immerse" everywhere it presently reads, "baptize."

For those who truly believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, the description of baptism in the New Testament is sufficient, regardless of what mere men may say on the subject.

cont.

Bro_Brown11233 · Feb 10, 2004

There are two basic schools of thought on the purpose of the baptism commanded by Jesus Christ: One says that baptism is an act of obedience of one who has already been saved, providing access to denominational membership after salvation has been granted through faith alone. In this view, baptism is part of one's obedience to Christ because he is already a Christian. The other view contends that baptism is the final act of obedience one submits to in order to be saved or forgiven of his past sins. In this view a person is not saved until he is baptized, at which time he is also added to the church because he is saved. What does the Bible say?

Jesus told the apostles that as they preached the gospel, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Note the order: (1) believe; (2) baptized; (3) saved. The order in not (1) believe; (2) saved; (3) baptized if one wished to join a church. In this verse baptism is made a condition of salvation, as plainly as is faith.

When the apostles began to fulfill the command to "go preach," they told people, "Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins. . . " (Acts 2:38). What relation does repentance sustain to remission (forgiveness) of sins? (Notice that baptism is on the same relation to forgiveness of sins as repentance.) Those who argue that baptism follows forgiveness instead of preceding it, must also place repentance after forgiveness to be consistent. However, there is not a single instance of forgiveness granted apart from repentance in all of the Bible. "Remission of sins" is placed after baptism in this passage, even as "salvation" is in the previous passage. Saul of Tarsus was commanded to ". . . be baptized and wash away thy sins. . . " (Acts 22:16). This statement makes no sense at all if one's sins are forgiven before one is baptized.

The objection is sometimes raised that to insist that immersion in water is a scriptural condition of salvation equals a doctrine of "water salvation." If that is the case, then it is such scriptures as Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16, etc., that should be blamed for the teaching, rather than those who believe it. However, such verses attribute no merit to water as a spiritual cleansing agent whatsoever. These verses do not say what the cleansing agent is. They only tell us when the cleansing occurs. It is plain from other scriptures that the blood of Christ is the agent of cleansing or forgiveness (1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 1:5, etc.). The old song is absolutely correct: "What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus."

When does this washing occur or how does one gain access to the precious cleansing blood of Christ? Besides the references already cited, consider also Romans 6:3: "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" It was in the act of his death that Jesus' cleansing blood was offered for the sins of mankind (Hebrews 9:26-28). By what means is the sinner able to participate in the death of Christ, where he offered his precious blood? The inspired apostle answers conclusively: "we are baptized into his death" (Rom. 6:3). This is in perfect harmony with every other scripture on baptism. The purpose God has revealed in his word for baptism is not that of Christian obedience, done because one has already been saved. Rather, it, along with a confessed faith in Christ and repentance of sins, is the act in which one comes to participate in the death of Christ. It is therefore the act from which one comes forth to live a new life (Rom. 6:4). It is the act upon which one is added to the church of Christ, because he has been saved and the church is God's depository of saved people (Acts 2:41, 47; Ephesians 5:23). Only when one understands that salvation is not bestowed until one is scripturally baptized, can one appreciate the apostle Peter's pronouncement that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21).
cont.

Bro_Brown11233 · Feb 10, 2004

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

We are baptized into Christ. The purpose of Baptism is to get into Christ. You cannot get into Christ any other way. Faith, Repentance, Confession, all necessary for salvation, do not put us into Christ. Baptism does.

Baptism is also for the purpose of a newness of life as described in Romans 6:4 (NASB) :"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."

The purpose of Baptism is to provide newness of life. Without Baptism it is impossible to have newness of life.

Baptism is also in the likeness of His death. Here we have the symbolism involved.

Romans 6:5-7 (NASB): "For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin."

Here the assurance is given that if we are baptized in the likeness of His death, we will be in the likeness of His resurrection.

And finally, the purpose of Baptism is so clearly stated in 1 Peter 3:21, you would have to work very hard to avoid a simple understanding of this verse: "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. . ."(NASB).

Please notice that the significance placed on baptism in this verse is salvation. Baptism saves! If God were going to tell you that the purpose of baptism is to save you, how would He state it any differently than, "baptism now saves you.?"

Serving the Master
Bro. Brown

greeker57married · Feb 10, 2004

Dear Bro. Brown,

Jesus told the apostles that as they preached the gospel, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Note the order: (1) believe; (2) baptized; (3) saved. The order in not (1) believe; (2) saved; (3) baptized if one wished to join a church. In this verse baptism is made a condition of salvation, as plainly as is faith.

When the apostles began to fulfill the command to "go preach," they told people, "Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins. . . " (Acts 2:38). What relation does repentance sustain to remission (forgiveness) of sins? (Notice that baptism is on the same relation to forgiveness of sins as repentance.) Those who argue that baptism follows forgiveness instead of preceding it, must also place repentance after forgiveness to be consistent. However, there is not a single instance of forgiveness granted apart from repentance in all of the Bible. "Remission of sins" is placed after baptism in this passage, even as "salvation" is in the previous passage. Saul of Tarsus was commanded to ". . . be baptized and wash away thy sins. . . " (Acts 22:16). This statement makes no sense at all if one's sins are forgiven before one is baptized.

1. the omission of Baptized with "disbelieveth" would seem to show that Jesus would not make baptism essential to salvation. Comdemnation rest on unbelief not on baptism. So salvation rest on rest on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support than the disputed passage Mark 16:9-20. Aleph and B two of the best manuscripts stop with verse 8. So baptismal regeneration rest on shakey ground with these verses.

2.The Greek of Acts 2:38 is saying, " You repent (plural) and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (eis) because of or on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins. The Greek preposition (eis) can be tranlated either purpose "for" or on the basis of. "They repented because of or at the preaching of Jonah" Matt. 12:41. So repent and then let each one of you based on his repentance be baptized because of the for giveness of his sins.

Act 2:38 - (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament)

Repent ye (metanoēsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first.

And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mat_28:19 (eis to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eis to onoma and en tōi onomati with baptizō since eis and en are really the same word in origin. In Act_10:48en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou occurs, but eis to onoma in Act_8:16; Act_19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mat_28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See note on Mat_28:19 for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page).

Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hūmōn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co_2:7eis doxan hēmōn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné[28928] generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already receive

Act 2:38 -

Repent ye (metanoēsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first.

And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mat_28:19 (eis to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eis to onoma and en tōi onomati with baptizō since eis and en are really the same word in origin. In Act_10:48en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou occurs, but eis to onoma in Act_8:16; Act_19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mat_28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See note on Mat_28:19 for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page).

Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hūmōn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co_2:7eis doxan hēmōn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné[28928] generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already receive

Will deal with more later

Godbless
John

Click to expand...

greeker57married · Feb 10, 2004

greeker57married said:
Dear Bro. Brown,

Jesus told the apostles that as they preached the gospel, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Note the order: (1) believe; (2) baptized; (3) saved. The order in not (1) believe; (2) saved; (3) baptized if one wished to join a church. In this verse baptism is made a condition of salvation, as plainly as is faith.

When the apostles began to fulfill the command to "go preach," they told people, "Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins. . . " (Acts 2:38). What relation does repentance sustain to remission (forgiveness) of sins? (Notice that baptism is on the same relation to forgiveness of sins as repentance.) Those who argue that baptism follows forgiveness instead of preceding it, must also place repentance after forgiveness to be consistent. However, there is not a single instance of forgiveness granted apart from repentance in all of the Bible. "Remission of sins" is placed after baptism in this passage, even as "salvation" is in the previous passage. Saul of Tarsus was commanded to ". . . be baptized and wash away thy sins. . . " (Acts 22:16). This statement makes no sense at all if one's sins are forgiven before one is baptized.

Click to expand...

1. the omission of Baptized with "disbelieveth" would seem to show that Jesus would not make baptism essential to salvation. Comdemnation rest on unbelief not on baptism. So salvation rest on rest on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support than the disputed passage Mark 16:9-20. Aleph and B two of the best manuscripts stop with verse 8. So baptismal regeneration rest on shakey ground with these verses.

2.The Greek of Acts 2:38 is saying, " You repent (plural) and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (eis) because of or on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins. The Greek preposition (eis) can be tranlated either purpose "for" or on the basis of. "They repented because of or at the preaching of Jonah" Matt. 12:41. So repent and then let each one of you based on his repentance be baptized because of the for giveness of his sins.

Act 2:38 - (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament)

Repent ye (metanoēsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first.

And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mat_28:19 (eis to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eis to onoma and en tōi onomati with baptizō since eis and en are really the same word in origin. In Act_10:48en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou occurs, but eis to onoma in Act_8:16; Act_19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mat_28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See note on Mat_28:19 for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page).

Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hūmōn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co_2:7eis doxan hēmōn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné[28928] generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already receive

Act 2:38 -

Repent ye (metanoēsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first.

And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mat_28:19 (eis to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eis to onoma and en tōi onomati with baptizō since eis and en are really the same word in origin. In Act_10:48en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou occurs, but eis to onoma in Act_8:16; Act_19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mat_28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See note on Mat_28:19 for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page).

Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hūmōn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co_2:7eis doxan hēmōn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné[28928] generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already receive

Will deal with more later

Godbless
John

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ben johnson · Feb 10, 2004

Did anyone read the opening post of this thread? I forget WHO it was that made it...

It has been the consistant teaching of the Church since the beginning that Baptism washes away sin . .

I think we can find errant teachings in ANY church. In Acts 22:16, is it the WATER that washes away sins, or is it the "calling on His name"? Our Gospel says, "you were washed/sanctified/justified in the NAME of Jesus and in the Spirit".

The fact remains that Cornelius & family/friends HAD the Holy Spirit, "JUES as the Apostles had AFTER BELIEVING" (11:15,17). They HAD the Holy Spirit, but they had NOT been waterbaptized.

It seems we are left with only two choices:
2. THey were NOT YET SAVED 'cause they hadn't been DIPPED, the Holy Spirit INDWELLS THE UNSAVED.
1. Waterbaptism ACCOMPANIES salvation; preceeds it (Acts8:16) or SUCCEEDS it (Acts10:47).

Can anyone think of ANOTHER choice? Can you really choose #1, asserting the Spirit INDWELLS the UNSAVED?

thereselittleflower · Feb 10, 2004

greeker57married said:
[/size][/font][/color][/left]

Dear Thereselittleflower,

You are an intellgent person with deep convictions. I respect your viewpoint.
The Greek Word for filth is rupou Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives this word study:

"rupou" fr. Hom. down, filth. The Greek word ruparia comes from ropou which means, filthness , metaph. of wickedness of moral defilement, Jam. 1:21. The Greek word ruparos which comes from rupou means filthy, dirty: prop. of clothing, Jas. ii.2. metaph. defiled with iniquity, base, [A.V. filthy]:Rev. xxii.11. The verb form of rupou, rupoo means 1. to make filthy, defile, soil. Hom. 2. intrans. for rupaoto be filthy: morally, Rev.xxii.11." (The New Thayer'sGreek-English Lexicon)

rupos or rupou Gen. can means something literally filthy as clothing or symbolically as moral filthiness or iniquity. Two of the three times it is used in the Scriptures listed in the Word study rupou refers to moral filthiness or wickness. Based on this I see no reason according to the context of 1Peter 3:21, why it cannot be translated moral wickedness or iniquity. I thank based on this that the Greek word flesh sarkos can refer to the sinful nature of man. Thayer says this: 4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

In the context of 1Peter 3:18 it has reference to man's spiritual defilement.

Simply put baptism does not effect inner cleansing and forgiveness of sin.

Your future tense of salvation is not very secure. "and I have the hope that I will be saved." I praise The Lord I know now that I am saved and if I were to die, I would spent eternity with Jesus Christ."

Rom 8:29 Because whom he has foreknown, he has also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he should be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rom 8:30 But whom he has predestinated, these also he has called; and whom he has called, these also he has justified; but whom he has justified, these also he has glorified.

The Greek is saying," Whom he has predestinated, these very same ones also he has called, and whom he has called, these very same ones also he has justified; but whom he has justified, these very same ones also he has glorified."

This is a five link chain of security. He takes the saint from predestinated to being glorified without losing a single one. Praise God glorious destiny of the saints!

1Co 1:17 For Christ has not sent me to baptise, but to preach glad tidings; not in wisdom of word, that the cross of the Christ may not be made vain.

God Bless
John

Hi John,

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, rupou can have a literal or symbolic meaning . . but since it is used only once in the New Testament, it is not so easy to determine what it means simply from how it is used in the bible . .

Also, in my searchings, I found that it also is used to mean poop, defecation . . and that there is another occurance of a derivative of this word in James . .and according to Strongs, it refers to moral filthiness in James 1:21
rhuparia

G4507

ῥυπαρία

rhuparia

hroo-par-ee'-ah

From G4508; dirtiness (morally): - filthiness.

I looked at the other support you presented for your view point, I am assuming you are a 5 point Calivinist - am I right? Without going into the whole issue of predestination and Calvinism, I believe I understand why you believe as you have stated above, however I disagree. . . The fact that God foreknows something does not mean He chose it . . I beleive very strongly in our free will and that we are the ones who choose . . That God's desire is that all choose Him . . but He, being all knowing, does know who will and who won't . .

The passage does not say we are predestined to be chosen . . it says that those whom He foreknows (those whom He knows will Choose Him), are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son! Those who do not choose Him are not predestined to receive this wonderful gift . . There is not a different possible end for believers . . this is what God predetermined for all who would Choose Him to become . .

And 1 Cor 1:17 has to be taken within the context it is written in:

1Co 1:11

For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul was dealing with factions in the Church, not downplaying the importance or significance of Baptism . . he was not wanting Baptism to become a dividing line based on who baptized whom . .

Paul was the one preaching the word . . there were others who baptized the believers there . . And he is expressing thankfulness that this was so, so no one could use that they were baptized by him as a reason to fracture the body of Christ, and claime to be his followers verses another's followers . .

All this said . . .what it comes down to in the verse in 1 Peter is that when one takes the bible by itself, thise verse is not clear enough, by itself, to tell us the meaning Peter had in mind . .

We have to have something else . .

And I strongly put it to all, that how this verse is interpreted is not based on the verse itself, but on one's adopted theology . .

For myself . . I choose to go back to the beginning of the Church to see how they understood baptism . . what it was to them, what it meant to them . .

And what I find there is consitent with Baptism washing away sins . . with Baptism being a nessary part of our salvation . .

If the earliest Christians had Christianity wrong, then Christianity is false . .

Peace in Him!

greeker57married · Feb 10, 2004

Dear thereselittleflower,

Thank you for your comments. I am not a five point calvinist. Baptist have some Calvinist leanings, but most Baptist believe in free will. In Romans 8:29, For whom he did foreknow means that He knew someone intimately in eternity past before they came into existence. The Greek Word, givosko means to know in a personal way or experiential way. But still where God For saw who would repent and trust Him or who He fore knew in a intimate relationship and how he purposed to use the individual does not matter. Still all those foreknown will be glorified. The verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are all in the Aroist tense indicative mood. Which makes the verbs past tense. Paul is saying that in the mind of God, He decrees that they will be justified, glorified and the idea in the Greek is without lossing any. "the those will be called, justified and glorified.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

Election is set in eternity past.

God Bless
John

When have more time will share more.

thereselittleflower · Feb 10, 2004

greeker57married said:
Dear thereselittleflower,

Thank you for your comments. I am not a five point calvinist. Baptist have some Calvinist leanings, but most Baptist believe in free will. In Romans 8:29, For whom he did foreknow means that He knew someone intimately in eternity past before they came into existence. The Greek Word, givosko means to know in a personal way or experiential way. But still where God For saw who would repent and trust Him or who He fore knew in a intimate relationship and how he purposed to use the individual does not matter. Still all those foreknown will be glorified. The verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are all in the Aroist tense indicative mood. Which makes the verbs past tense. Paul is saying that in the mind of God, He decrees that they will be justified, glorified and the idea in the Greek is without lossing any. "the those will be called, justified and glorified.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

Election is set in eternity past.

God Bless
John

When have more time will share more.

Hi greeker57married

Well, I assumed wrongly I guess! when you mentioned a 5 link chain, I wondered if you were a 5 point calvinist . . but you were merely referring to the passage in question . .

Let me ask you this . . if God intimately knew each one elected in eternity past, then did we pre-exist and were in relationship with him?

I am not a greek scholar, but I love to learn and want to learn greek . .

With limited tools I have at my disposal, I do not see the Greek word proginōskō

Strongs:

G4267

προγινώσκω

proginōskō

prog-in-oce'-ko

From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before)

Thayers:

G4267

προγινώσκω

proginōskō

Thayer Definition:

1) to have knowledge before hand

2) to foreknow

2a) of those whom God elected to salvation

3) to predestinate

Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word by Thayers/Strongs Number: from G4253 and G1097

Citing in TDNT: 1:715, 119

Neither of which carry the intimate knowing that you are stating is the case . .

Both deal with knowledge in the past, not relationship . .

Anyway . .

Because God knows the end from the beginning, in one sense, election is in eternity past . .

1) if that implies that God is the one doing the choosing, then it is an error . .

2) If it implies that this election is based on our choice, then I have no argument with it.

Since you believe in free will, it seems to me that we are in agreement with number 2 above. . . . .

Peace in him!

A Brethren IN CHRIST · Feb 10, 2004

God created a plan in His mind where he knew how things could be ...will be and could have been

He knew the players of this movie script ..everyone of them...us.

Proverbs 16:9

God is who makes the rich and poor... 1 sam 2:6-8

A Brethren IN CHRIST · Feb 10, 2004

greeker57married said:
Dear thereselittleflower,

Thank you for your comments. I am not a five point calvinist. Baptist have some Calvinist leanings, but most Baptist believe in free will. In Romans 8:29, For whom he did foreknow means that He knew someone intimately in eternity past before they came into existence. The Greek Word, givosko means to know in a personal way or experiential way. But still where God For saw who would repent and trust Him or who He fore knew in a intimate relationship and how he purposed to use the individual does not matter. Still all those foreknown will be glorified. The verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are all in the Aroist tense indicative mood. Which makes the verbs past tense. Paul is saying that in the mind of God, He decrees that they will be justified, glorified and the idea in the Greek is without lossing any. "the those will be called, justified and glorified.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

Election is set in eternity past.

God Bless
John

When have more time will share more.

\

God is GOOD and his word spells it out

greeker57married · Feb 10, 2004

were in relationship with him? (Dear thereselittleflower)

I am not a greek scholar, but I love to learn and want to learn greek . .

With limited tools I have at my disposal, I do not see the Greek word proginōskō

Strongs:



G4267


προγινώσκω

proginōskō

prog-in-oce'-ko

From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before)

Thayers:



G4267


προγινώσκω

proginōskō

Thayer Definition:

1) to have knowledge before hand

2) to foreknow

2a) of those whom God elected to salvation

3) to predestinate

Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word by Thayers/Strongs Number: from G4253 and G1097

Citing in TDNT: 1:715, 119

Neither of which carry the intimate knowing that you are stating is the case . .

Both deal with knowledge in the past, not relationship . .

proginosko to have knowledge of before hand, to foreknow, 2Pet. iii.17, Acts xxvi.5. ous proegno whom he (God) foreknew, sc.that they would love him, or (with reference to what follows) whom he foreknew to be fit to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, Rom. viii.29. On proegno whose character he clearly saw beforehand, Rom, xi. . .(The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. 538)

pro the preposition means before it buts it in eternity past, ginosko the verb to know which is the root word for proginosko.

ginosko I.Univ. 1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of; pass. to become known: with acc. Mt. xxii.18, Mk. v.43, Acts xxi.34; 1Co. iv.19; 2Co. ii.4. With acc. of pers. to recognize as worthy of intimacy and and love, to own, so those whom God has judged worthy of the blessings of the gospel. 1Co. 8.3. 2. to know understand percieve, have knowledge of a. to understand with acc. Lk xviii.34. II. In particular ginosko, to become acquainted with, to know. ginoskeiv, denotes a discriminating apprehension of external impressions,a knowledge grounded in personal experience. (The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. 117)

Clearly you can see from this that there is within the word an Idea of personal acquaintence. No we did not exist in eternity past as some eion or something, but God who has all knowledge, past present and future in his knowledge and mind knew us in eeternity past. Put the word does not mean pre-science that God foresaw what man would do. Rather God knew him in a personal way and how that related to his redemptive purpose.

God bless
John

AVBunyan · Feb 11, 2004

I don't know about all this Greek - I'm a simple-minded kind of fella. The purpose of water baptism is explained in:

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Real simple - in the gospels, dealing with Israel - Paraphrase - "Do you believe Christ is your messiah? You do? Then get baptized to show you believe it." That's it. Don't add anything else to it - leave the verse alone and believe it as it stands Now somebody show me where John's baptism changed meaning to mean:

1. Get baptized in water to be saved.
This leads to a false salvation - Gal. 1:8,9.
2. Get baptized because it pictures the death, burial, and resurrection (sounds good but can't find it in scripture).
This leads to people making a doctrine that is not there thus putting people into bondage. For many people are taught one must get baptised after salvation or they are disobedient, etc. Shameful to put saints under this.

The two above modern meanings for baptism have caused great confusion and in some case even damnation of souls for those who are trusting in water to save them.

Just believe the verse John 1:31 - it is so simple.

Your thoughts

Ben johnson · Feb 11, 2004

Your thoughts

Good post!

No one can deny passages like Acts 10:43-48. Vs47: "Surely no one can refuse water for these to be BAPTIZED who have RECEIVED the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE DID?"

Saved, THEN water-baptized...

AVBunyan · Feb 11, 2004

Ben johnson said:
Good post!

No one can deny passages like Acts 10:43-48. Vs47: "Surely no one can refuse water for these to be BAPTIZED who have RECEIVED the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE DID?"

Saved, THEN water-baptized...

Thanks Ben - look also to see why they were baptized - I think if you look at the context it was because they believed that Christ was who He said He was and that was the message beiing preached to all at that time. The issue back then was, "Is Christ the messiah, the Son of God?" It wasn't until Paul came along that the message of Christ dying for sins was revealed. I do not believe Peter was aware of that yet (Christ dying for sins for salvation) for that truth was revealed to Paul first. My, my, my - that sure does present a problem for those who try to get their doctrine of salvation from the early part of Acts!

Is WATERBAPTISM part of salvation?

face::face with Christ

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency