Was Peter Baptized?

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Then you have already failed if you believe that Peter was baptized.

Honestly, what is it that you have against the Catholic Church?

It is clearly stated, by Jesus himself, that we must be born again of water and spirit to enter heaven.

I fail to understand how to are "proving the Catholic Church wrong!"



So...you say that the Catholic Church is wrong....and then you agree with them??

I guess you did not see the word......."BUT".
The response was that even though the RCC teaches water baptism for salvation.........
"It will allow circumstances to dictate its teaching".

No where in that response are the words "I agree with them".

You are putting words into my mouth because you are angry that anyone would challenge your RCC's teachings.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you baptised? Most professed Christians are because of an inward compulsion.

Absolutely! Every Christian should be baptized. NOT to be saved but to show our identifying with the death, burial nd resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

We are baptized because we ARE saved and not in order to be saved.

Thank you for asking!
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟30,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Because you are a Catholic and you do not want to know.

Again, I did not say Peter was not baptized. I said that there is no record of that event.

Jesus DID NOT say we were to be baptized with water in order to be saved. Do the homework friend and you will see that the "water" in John 3 is the Word of God.

.......clealy, you are confused.

Water is used throughout the Bible was God's way to show rebirth, new life.

The flood washed out the evil from the world and saved Noah and his family, Moses and his people were saved from the Egyptians through the water of the Red Sea, and crossed into their new life.

Water and Spirit is very clear. Water, and the Holy Spirit.

A dove (symbol of the Holy Spirit) showed that land was found to Noah, the Spirit of God showed the way to Moses through the Red Sea...

It is very clear, and God appears to like things this way.

Jesus was baptized, and it is here were the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and the Father spoke.

And just like Noah and Moses, we too are born again through "water and spirit" aka baptism.

It is very clear. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament, and there are many links between the two.

Water and Spirit being one of them. It is not me that has to do homework on the subject.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Goatee
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,350
14,508
Vancouver
Visit site
✟335,989.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Absolutely! Every Christian should be baptized. NOT to be saved but to show our identifying with the death, burial nd resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

We are baptized because we ARE saved and not in order to be saved.

Thank you for asking!
I won't go so far as to say should be because that takes it again to obeying law. But that it is a compulsion of a new creation I totally agree.
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,350
14,508
Vancouver
Visit site
✟335,989.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
.......clealy, you are confused.

Water is used throughout the Bible was God's way to show rebirth, new life.

The flood washed out the evil from the world and saved Noah and his family, Moses and his people were saved from the Egyptians through the water of the Red Sea, and crossed into their new life.

Water and Spirit is very clear. Water, and the Holy Spirit.

A dove (symbol of the Holy Spirit) showed that land was found to Noah, the Spirit of God showed the way to Moses through the Red Sea...

It is very clear, and God appears to like things this way.

Jesus was baptized, and it is here were the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and the Father spoke.

And just like Noah and Moses, we too are born again through "water and spirit" aka baptism.

It is very clear. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament, and there are many links between the two.

Water and Spirit being one of them. It is not me that has to do homework on the subject.
Noah's family were in the ark and God had closed the door before the rain came.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I won't go so far as to say should be because that takes it again to obeying law. But that it is a compulsion of a new creation I totally agree.

Agreed! May I change that then to........"have a desire to be baptized".
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
.......clealy, you are confused.

Water is used throughout the Bible was God's way to show rebirth, new life.

The flood washed out the evil from the world and saved Noah and his family, Moses and his people were saved from the Egyptians through the water of the Red Sea, and crossed into their new life.

Water and Spirit is very clear. Water, and the Holy Spirit.

A dove (symbol of the Holy Spirit) showed that land was found to Noah, the Spirit of God showed the way to Moses through the Red Sea...

It is very clear, and God appears to like things this way.

Jesus was baptized, and it is here were the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and the Father spoke.

And just like Noah and Moses, we too are born again through "water and spirit" aka baptism.

It is very clear. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament, and there are many links between the two.

Water and Spirit being one of them. It is not me that has to do homework on the subject.

"I" am confused.........LOL!

I am sorry my friend, no disrespect but that just struck me as very funny.

All of those comments are true. However it is very obvious that you are stretching the teaching of the Scriptures to make them say what you have been taught your whole life. Now if that is what you choose to do, fine with me.

I can not agree with you for many reasons. Noah and Moses were not born again through water.

Did you read comment #145?????? Noah's family was NOT washed in the flood......they were already in the Ark when the rains came.

The flood did not wash away evil. Where did you get that kind of theology???????

The flood killed all the people of the world except Noah and his family and when the flood receded evil was still here as Noah and his family were still sinners.

Romans 3:23............
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

That includes Noah, his family, Moses, Joshua, Daniel and yes, Mary.
 
Upvote 0

jaison jose

Active Member
Sep 14, 2017
100
15
23
delhi
✟10,059.00
Country
India
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I am always amused and amazed at what people say. Now friend, IF you had read the post thoroughly you would have seen and read that I DO NOT say that Peter WAS NOT baptized.

How then can I be wrong over something I did not say??????

I encoursge you to do the actual Bible study on Baptism instead of copy and pasting Catholic web sites and you will be amazed at what you will be able to learn.

As an example you said..........
"Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12)."

Totally incorrect my friend.

1 Peter 3:21 is not talking about water baptism but instead Peter is talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Now I believe in water baptism and every person who is "born again" should be baptized, however the act of baptism only gets you wet and doe not save you.

Peter is NOT referring to water baptism as he knows it is not water that cleanses our spirt from filth but instead he knows that is is only the blood of Christ.
"You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has "put on Christ." But the apostle John also says: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." And the Lord himself taught us to pray: "Forgive us our trespasses," linking our forgiveness of one another's offenses to the forgiveness of our sins that God will grant us.

Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us "holy and without blemish," just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is "holy and without blemish." Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.

from CCC
Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails both God's forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.38

Only God forgives sin

1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43

Reconciliation with the Church

1443 During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God's forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.44

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."45 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."46

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

The sacrament of forgiveness

1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."47

1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this "order of penitents" (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the "private" practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day.

1448 Beneath the changes in discipline and celebration that this sacrament has undergone over the centuries, the same fundamental structure is to be discerned. It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; on the other, God's action through the intervention of the Church. The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction, also prays for the sinner and does penance with him. Thus the sinner is healed and re-established in ecclesial communion.

1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:



God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and the resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins;
through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.48
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Thedictator

Retired Coach, Now Missionary to the World
Mar 21, 2010
989
529
Northeast Texas
✟50,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Romans 6:3-5...............
The New Testament teaches conclusively that,
(1) water baptism always follows conversion and,
(2) salvation is totally the work of God's grace appropriated by faith (Eph. 2:8-9, Romans 4:5).

If the baptism here is water baptism, Paul is absolutely not saying that the rite of baptism itself puts one into Christ or is necessary for salvation.

Baptism is a symbolic rite symbolizing the believer's identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the preceding Chapter Paul makes it plain in 5:20.......
" . . . But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" .

The subject of chapter 6:1 concerns the appropriation of grace. By definition, grace is the bestowment of God's unmerited favor to the sinner, therefore, baptism is a work or rite. Salvation is solely received by God's grace through faith, apart from any work or merit of man, and therefore cannot be a sacrament. The passage is not teaching baptismal regeneration.

Biblically water baptism is not a sacrament but is a symbol of the "believer's union with Christ and is illustrated by the rite of baptism in the mode of immersion. The three actions therein are symbolic: into the water - death; under the water - burial; out of the water - resurrection.

The New Testament "conclusively" teaches that baptism is the last step of the conversion process, denominations teach that conversion is when one believes but the Word of God does not, it is only the start.

You are breaking every rule of hermeneutics in the book. It is very bad hermeneutics to take one verse ( like you have with Ephesians 2 ) and build a whole doctrine around it and then make the rest of the Bible fit that doctrine you have constructed. The first rule of hermeneutics is to read the bible with an open mind without any pre-conceived ideas and take every verse on an issue that the bible speaks on and then formulate a doctrine that does not conflict with each other and the whole teaching of the Bible. Using one verse to change all the rest of the bible like you are doing is just bad hermeneutics in every way.

Now for Roman 6, It is clear that Paul is teaching that baptism is a spiritual reenactment of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ( the death, burial, and resurrection, Peter in his book states that we are saved by the resurrection that is represented in baptism ) this is simple elementary teaching of Paul and Peter.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,281
13,509
72
✟369,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The New Testament "conclusively" teaches that baptism is the last step of the conversion process, denominations teach that conversion is when one believes but the Word of God does not, it is only the start.

You are breaking every rule of hermeneutics in the book. It is very bad hermeneutics to take one verse ( like you have with Ephesians 2 ) and build a whole doctrine around it and then make the rest of the Bible fit that doctrine you have constructed. The first rule of hermeneutics is to read the bible with an open mind without any pre-conceived ideas and take every verse on an issue that the bible speaks on and then formulate a doctrine that does not conflict with each other and the whole teaching of the Bible. Using one verse to change all the rest of the bible like you are doing is just bad hermeneutics in every way.

Now for Roman 6, It is clear that Paul is teaching that baptism is a spiritual reenactment of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ( the death, burial, and resurrection, Peter in his book states that we are saved by the resurrection that is represented in baptism ) this is simple elementary teaching of Paul and Peter.

So, if baptism is the last step in the conversion process, what happens to all those folks, including the repentant thief on the cross, who, for perfectly good reasons, are unable to get baptized?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Thedictator

Retired Coach, Now Missionary to the World
Mar 21, 2010
989
529
Northeast Texas
✟50,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, if baptism is the last step in the conversion process, what happens to all those folks, including the repentant thief on the cross, who, for perfectly good reasons, are unable to get baptized?

Jesus Christ had authority while he was on Earth to forgive sin, even without faith in who he was, he did so with the man who was lowered through the roof on a mat. The man on the cross is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goatee
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,281
13,509
72
✟369,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Jesus Christ had authority while he was on Earth to forgive sin, even without faith in who he was, he did so with the man who was lowered through the roof on a mat. The man on the cross is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

Have there been any other exceptions to this rule?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The New Testament "conclusively" teaches that baptism is the last step of the conversion process, denominations teach that conversion is when one believes but the Word of God does not, it is only the start.

You are breaking every rule of hermeneutics in the book. It is very bad hermeneutics to take one verse ( like you have with Ephesians 2 ) and build a whole doctrine around it and then make the rest of the Bible fit that doctrine you have constructed. The first rule of hermeneutics is to read the bible with an open mind without any pre-conceived ideas and take every verse on an issue that the bible speaks on and then formulate a doctrine that does not conflict with each other and the whole teaching of the Bible. Using one verse to change all the rest of the bible like you are doing is just bad hermeneutics in every way.

Now for Roman 6, It is clear that Paul is teaching that baptism is a spiritual reenactment of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ( the death, burial, and resurrection, Peter in his book states that we are saved by the resurrection that is represented in baptism ) this is simple elementary teaching of Paul and Peter.

NO it does not say that friend.

Do you actually believe that I am practicing bad hermeneutics???

Do you realize how wrong you are in your comments???

You said..........
"It is very bad hermeneutics to take one verse ( like you have with Ephesians 2 ) and build a whole doctrine around it and then make the rest of the Bible fit that doctrine you have constructed."

My dear friend, did you not know that is exactly what Martin Luther did in his 99 Thesis in 1565. He took Ephesians 2:8-9 and came away with the doctrine of..............
"Salvation by Grace" which got him excommunicated from the RCC.

Now you are free to disagree with me. I do however question the idea that you think you can question my exegesis of the Word of God over this subject of water baptism.

The correct exegesis and hermeneutical process of the Bible stresses that a person is saved by grace through faith and that salvation is a gift of God, freely given, when one believes in Jesus Christ for their salvation. Now that is the Word of God my dear friend as seen in Eph. 2:8-9. Now if you do not choose to believe that, it is your choice but it is NOT wrong hermeneutic in any way.

There is no question that baptism is an important first act of obedience of the one who has believed in Jesus Christ and received forgiveness of sin and eternal life. However, baptism, as presented in the New Testament, always follows belief and never is the basis for receiving salvation. Baptism, in the Scriptures, is part of one's outward public profession of belief in Jesus Christ as one's Savior and it initiates one into the local body of believers. It follows salvation and though important it is not necessary for salvation.

The clear teaching of the New Testament is that it is faith and faith alone that saves. At least sixty times the New Testament states that salvation is received by faith with no mention of baptism.

In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul parallels baptism with circumcision and in Romans 4:9-12, denies the "grace plus works for salvation" heresy by stating that Abraham was justified by God before he was circumcised. Circumcision was a practice commanded by the Lord to Israel and in believing God and outwardly acknowledging Him as a Jew by this sign, showed that he believed and identified himself with Jehovah God and as an Israelite. Circumcision never made anyone a Jew and likewise baptism does not make one a child of God. Like baptism, circumcision was an act of identification.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus Christ had authority while he was on Earth to forgive sin, even without faith in who he was, he did so with the man who was lowered through the roof on a mat. The man on the cross is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

So you adamantly teach and expound that water baptism is a part salvation, and it must be done in order to be saved.....

BUT when it is pointed out that there are situations in which that can not be done, then all of a sudden there are "Exceptions".

That means then that water baptism IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF SALVATION!!!!!!

Acts 10:34.............
" Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons".

My dear friend, it is one for all or none for all. Either we ALL must be water baptized in order to be saved or no one has to be water baptized or God is then a liar.
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Every Bible teaching must be filtered and understood by our logic and our ability to learn and grow.


Major1, I believe you are not understanding my question. I know it is wandering off topic, but I feel it is pertinent in the discussion of Scripture. Back on page six of this Thread, Thedictator and yourself disagreed on the meaning of a certain passage. (Eph.2:10) Keep in mind, I am using this certain disagreement as an example. I could quote pages of scripture disagreements among non-Catholics within this forum, but will use this one as an example.



Now Major1, I am going to go out on a limb here and say when you and Thedictator are revealing your understanding's of this bible passage (or any other passage) to those of us here on Christian Forums, you both consider yourselves doing so under the insperation of the Holy Spirit, correct? (feel free to pine in here Thedictator) If not, please feel free to correct me.




If this were so, you two should agree and would not contradict each other in your interpretation of Scripture, right? So this is the conundrum.....How can it be said that the Holy Spirit personally guides you both in the interpretation of this passage when one of you comes to one conclusion and other comes to contradictory conclusion? Clearly only one of you two must be in error, correct? Surley you don't expect us to accept contradictory conclusions as equally valid do you? You said that Thedictator was in error and you were not, how do you come to this, by the Holy Spirit?



If this is so, how can it be true that the Holy Spirit guides you in the proper understanding of Scripture, since it is clear that those who believe in personal interpretation of the Bible so often disagree on the meaning of Scripture? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of truth and the remover of errors - guides people in a contradictory fashion? If persons were truly guided by the Holy Spirit, surely they would all interpret the same way, right?



In closing Major1, I'd like to ask you, as a sola scripturist (and Thedictator) where "exactly" does Scripture guarantee that you - "personally" - will be given an accurate understanding of the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Major1, I believe you are not understanding my question. I know it is wandering off topic, but I feel it is pertinent in the discussion of Scripture. Back on page six of this Thread, Thedictator and yourself disagreed on the meaning of a certain passage. (Eph.2:10) Keep in mind, I am using this certain disagreement as an example. I could quote pages of scripture disagreements among non-Catholics within this forum, but will use this one as an example.



Now Major1, I am going to go out on a limb here and say when you and Thedictator are revealing your understanding's of this bible passage (or any other passage) to those of us here on Christian Forums, you both consider yourselves doing so under the insperation of the Holy Spirit, correct? (feel free to pine in here Thedictator) If not, please feel free to correct me.




If this were so, you two should agree and would not contradict each other in your interpretation of Scripture, right? So this is the conundrum.....How can it be said that the Holy Spirit personally guides you both in the interpretation of this passage when one of you comes to one conclusion and other comes to contradictory conclusion? Clearly only one of you two must be in error, correct? Surley you don't expect us to accept contradictory conclusions as equally valid do you? You said that Thedictator was in error and you were not, how do you come to this, by the Holy Spirit?



If this is so, how can it be true that the Holy Spirit guides you in the proper understanding of Scripture, since it is clear that those who believe in personal interpretation of the Bible so often disagree on the meaning of Scripture? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of truth and the remover of errors - guides people in a contradictory fashion? If persons were truly guided by the Holy Spirit, surely they would all interpret the same way, right?



In closing Major1, I'd like to ask you, as a sola scripturist (and Thedictator) where "exactly" does Scripture guarantee that you - "personally" - will be given an accurate understanding of the Bible?

1).
Some people are at a higher level of understanding.

Romans 14:5..........
"One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

2).
Some people have studied a subject at a higher level of education in theological matters.

In fact, Jesus Himself learned. One of the only things we know of His childhood is that He “grew in wisdom” as He grew “in stature” in Luke 2:52.
That is, the Son of God voluntarily put Himself in a position where He needed to assimilate knowledge as a man. Education was part of the process.

Joshua 1:8 .......
"This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success."

3).
Common sense! God gives us common sense.

Proverbs 9:10 ..............
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight."

1 Chronicles 22:12
"May God give you common sense and understanding, and may he give you his orders concerning Isra’el, so that you will observe the Torah of Adonai your God."

Common sense tells us that we do not try and walk across the Interstate at 5:00 in the
afternoon.

Common sense says that we do not pick up and kiss a rattlesnake.
Common sense says that we do not spit into the wind.
Common sense says that we do not pull on Superman's cape.

All the things above and then logic and common sense tells us that we do not have to be baptized in water to be saved. We can be and should to be AFTER we accept Jesus Christ but it is NOT a requirement of salvation.

If it is, common sense and logic then dictates that there is no such thing as death bed confession so then all Catholic last rites mean nothing at all since the person who may have accepted Christ on their death bed was not baptized.

Think for a moment of all the wars fought where men were wounded and at deaths door and someone led them to Christ and they died without being baptized.

Think for a moment about Jesus telling the thief on the cross that TODAY he would be in Paradise with Him. Did they take that man down and baptize him and them put him back on the cross to die......or did Jesus lie????????

Does that sound to YOU like something that God would ordain?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Thedictator

Retired Coach, Now Missionary to the World
Mar 21, 2010
989
529
Northeast Texas
✟50,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
.
Acts 2:37-38.............
As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism which is exactly what Eph. 2:8-9 clearly tells us.

So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

The grammatical evidence surrounding Acts 2:37-38 verse and the Greek preposition eis is clear that the view on this verse is well within the context and the range of possible meanings of the passage, the majority of the evidence then is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.”

Therefore, Acts 2:38, when interpreted correctly, does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.

That is completely false all Bible translators and most scholars state that because of the structure of Biblical Greek grammar that the context of the word "eis" can not be "Because of" Every Bible translation of the word is "for". Not one translation of the Hundreds of English Bibles has "because of" as their translation. This is just more false denominational teaching.

Some denominations have tried to use English grammar on the Greek texts to justify a false translation. Greek and English grammar are not the same.
 
Upvote 0