What must one do to be saved???

Chem:
Philip baptized the Eunoch in Acts 8:36-38. Philip baptized the Eunoch in water.( vs.38). The Eunoch understood from his reading Isaiah 53 and the preaching of Philip that immersion in water was connected to understanding Isaiah 53 and knowing Christ and his redemptive sacrifice.( Isaiah 53:5-11). It is also evident from the scriptures that the eunoch must have understood that Christ was the lamb of God that takes away our sins.( Jn. 1: 29). He rejoiced after he was baptized ( Acts 8:40). He also understood that baptism connects us with the blood of Christ.( Rev. 1:5, Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16).This must be the case as no one is saved without being washed in the blood of the lamb.( I Pet. 1:18,19,Hebrews 10; 22). The evidence indicates by declarative statement that Philip baptized the euncoh in water.( vs. 38). The evidence of the scriptures by declarative statement and implication indicates the eunoch understood that baptism linked him with the redemptive power in the blood of the lamb. ( Jn. 1:29. I Pet. 1:18,19, Rev. 1:5, Isaiah 53:11). The Eunoch understood he had a personal responsibility to obey the preaching of Christ.He asked after the preaching of Jesus in verse 35," see here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (vs. 36, Hebrews 5:8,9).
Therefore, the Bible teaches in Acts 8:28-40, by example, and implication that water baptism is an immersion in water that puts one in contact with the blood of Christ that washes away sin and results in the personal joy of the lost in being freed from sin.( Acts 8: 28- 40, Isaiah 53:1-12, Romans 6:17,18).
Frank

 

Frank, I guess you didn't read my post that closely. Implied is not good enough, because while they may have gone down into the water that does not mean that he was immersed. He could have just as easily dumped water over him. Just as I am making an assumption, so are you, it is not enough to rule out a method of baptizing.

 

Chem:
The declarative statement of Acts 8:38 that they both went down into the water and he baptized him, proves baptism is by immersion in water.
I read your post. You asked for evidence and there it is.
By the way, language works in three and only three ways: declarative statement, example and implication. Your statement that implication is not enough is simply to ignore the way all language works!
Let me in illustrate implication for you. The golf clubs are in the bag. The bag is in the trunk of the car. Where are the golf clubs? They are in the trunk of the car. I know this by implication. Furthermore, by your fallacious reasoning, you cannot prove Paul repented of his sins. There is no declarative statement of such. However, I know he did because one cannot become a Christian without repenting of his sins.( Lk. 13:3,5, Acts 11:18, Mat. 18:3). This is implied by the verses related to the subject.
Finally, God requires men to examine the totality of evidence to find the truth.( Psalms 119:160).
Frank

 

Chem:
Baptism means to plunge, dip,overwhelm. Words have meaning. Baptize means in the Greek language as it was demonstrated in the first century to be an immersion. Sprinkling is raintizo. It was not practiced until a sick man, Novation, was sprinkled in the second century.Again, just as language works in three ways. Words must be understood in the context in which they are used and by what they mean.
Scholars from every background understand baptism as an immersion in water.Ray Summers, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel Wallace Dallas Theolgical Seminary, Albert Barnes, Presbyterian, A. W. Meyers,Lutheran as some of the scholars that understand baptism as immersion in water. Hugo Mccord, who has a Thd. in Greek, has translated the New Testament into english defines baptism as an immersion.
The early church historians understood baptism as immersion in water. These include Origen, Chrysotom, Augustine,Cyril, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius,in the commentairies on this subject along with Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose,Basil, Gregory, Nyssen and many more early historians.( See Exposition of the Dominical Epistles and Gospels).
Greek scholars Arndt- Gingrich define baptism as immersion, overwhelming, plunge dip.Thayer concurs with Arndt-Gingrich.( see Lexicons of New Testament Words). The rational conclusion to be made from the extant evidence is that baptism is immersion in water.
Frank

 

No it doesn't provide sufficient evidence. It would only prove that they went into the water, not how the actual baptism occurred.

If you have followed the debate up to this point, you have noticed that I feel translating baptism as immersion is a horrendous folly because it ignores so much of the lexical evidence that points to washing(ritual) as the meaning for baptism

Well, if we are going to play this game. James Voelz M.Div,Ph.d has translated baptism as ritual washing.

Oh yes a very convincing argument, not. I can tell you as a Lutheran that using a Lutheran to back your argument isn't going to help you, since Lutheran's do not make any distinction on the validity of a baptism by how much water is used. The only reason I am involved in this is because of the insistance of incorrectly translating the greek and the corresponding insistance that only immersion is valid.

Implication only works if there is a clear implication in the basic text and grammar. In this case there is no clear implication because it can be successfully argued either way.

Also, Paul's repentance or non repentance is not even remotely related because Paul was directly called by God. So really that is a moot point and not particularly relevant to the argument.

 

went DOWN
came UP

You ignore the 'down' and 'up' quite easily!

Why did John baptize were there was "much water"?

If baptism by sprinkling were acceptable to God, then John would have had no need for "much water"! In fact, John would have been able to baptize more people, right? If he had not stayed in the same spot but moved around with a cup in his hand and just dumped water on people's heads. BUT NO, he needed "much water." It's pure stubbornness to say baptism does not mean immersion.

[ June 11, 2002, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

Chem:
You do not read well do you? I quote HE(Philip) BAPTIZED him ( The Eunoch). This baptism was performed in water. It is all in the verse.( Acts 8:38). This covers the term both, as two people are mentioned. It covers the action ,baptism, declared in the vere .It covers the element water which is also declared in the verse.
By the way,those who are considered as credible scholars understand from the Bible, the original language, and history that baptism is an immersion. Your contention is one that is unsupported by the evidence. It was not even considered as a contention until Calvin in the 1500.You could cite him ,too. However, he is not honest in his scholarship any more than you or the people you have cited. Your contention is one that simply ignores the meaning of words and the text of scripture in totality and history itself.You have not supplied any evidence that the original language supports that the baptism of the Bible as it relates to water baptism is and was not an immersion.You have made unsupported assertions from commentators. Funny, you despise implication , and then try to support you position with it. ( James 1:8).
You simply cannot change the meaning of words.
Baptizo, baptisma means what it means and says what it means as it relates to water baptism. Your contention is simply one that ignores the totality of the evidence.
Frank

 

Gee sounds like what I am accussing you of doing.

I can read very well. I have provided the proof that Baptism doesnot just mean immersion.

You see that is the problem you are relying on other people's scholarship. I do understand the original languages enough to say they are full of it.

βαπτιζω (BDAG pg 164,165) 1. wash ceremonially for purpose of purification, wash ,purify, of a broad range of repeated ritual washing rooted in Israelite tradition.
2. to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize The transliteration 'baptize' signifies the ceremonial character that the NT narratives accord such cleansing, but the need of qualifying statements or contextual coloring in the documents indicates that the term βαπτιζω was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests.
3. to cause someone to have an extraordinary experience akin to an initiatory water-rite, to plunge, baptize

BDAG is a well respected lexicon, not a commentary.

 

Chem:
I refuse to use names to build my case. I will let the Bible speak. I Cor. 10::2 Moses was baptized in the clouds and in the sea. Clouds are made of water vapor and were overhead as they passed through the Red Sea which compassed them on all sides. This is an overwhelming, immersion or a baptism. This is how God defined baptism, your accusations not withstanding. Noah was saved by water. I Peter 3:20. The like figure baptism in water saves us. I Pet. 3:21. The sinful world was overwhelmed, immersed in water in the days of Noah. God, again defines baptism as an immersion, overwhelming a covering a burial.
The Eunoch was baptized in Water. ( Acts 8:36). Again, coinsistent with the original language, examples and statements in the New Testament, he was immersed, overwhelmed in water. He was not confussed as to the purpose. ( Is. 53:1-12, Mak 28:18-20, Mk. 16:16, I Pet. 1:18,19). He understood Jesus blood was contacted in the watery grave of baptism in the water he saw that day.( Acts 8:28-40). This example is in harmony with the nine examples of conversion in Acts. ( 2:38;8:12,36;10:47,48;16:13-15,30-33;18:8;19:1-5; 22:16). It harmonizes with the words of Christ.( JN. 3:3-5, Mk. 16:16, Mat. 28:18-20). It harmonizes with the example of Christ.( Mat. 3:16). It harmonizes with the purpose of John in preparing people for the Lord.( Lk.7:29,Mat. 3:11, Mk. 1:4,Lk. 1:17). It harmonizes with the inspired apostolic teachings.( Gal. 3:26-29, Romans 6: 3-6, I Pet. 3:20,21).Water Baptism connects us with the sin cleansing blood of Christ.( Rev.1:5, Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16). It is in harmony with the redemptive plan of God from the beginning.( I Pet. 1:2).
Baptism in water uses the Greek prepostion EK meaning OUT OF. Therefore, it cannot mean to sprinkle.
Finally, you may wash pots and cups and such like things, if you wish, however, this type of washing will not save us.( Mk. 7:6-9). No Old Testament ritual of cleansing will save us.( Gal. 3:11;5:4. However, obeying the command to be immersed for unto the remission of sins in water baptism doth also now save us.( I Pet. 3:20,21, Acts 2:38).Water Baptism is the like figure of the baptism in the days of Noah. It was an immersion and overwhelming by water. It is the same type as the Children of Israel rejoiced over as they were surrounded by the clouds and the sea.It is the same baptism the Eunoch rejoiced over after he arose to walk in newness of life.( Acts 8:28-40). In each case, the baptism was one true to the NEW TESTAMENT of CHRIST. It was an immersion,overwhelming a plunging, a burial in water. The Bible says so!
Frank

 

So now you are going to stoop to lieing. Hmmm... Great tactic.

I have not said that Baptism means to sprinkle. I have said that baptism means to wash, which does harmonize it with Christ cleansing blood. εκ proves nothing, they still could have just been standing in the water.

But they were not immersed in the Red Sea. They would have had to walk through the water to be immersed in it, which they did not, they walked on dry land.

 

chem:
I was referring to calling people names. I used the scriptures to determine the meaning of water baptism in the Bible. You can wash anything you like but it still does not change the contextual meaning of New Testament water baptism. The question then, is this: Is the Baptism of water in the New Testament immersion in water? The Bible says it is. That is all that is going to matter on the day of Judgement, too. Jesus said," he that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day." Jesus said,"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mk. 16:16). The Eunoch understood it.( Acts 8:33-36) Cornelius understood it.( Acts 10:47,48).Peter understood it. ( I Pet. 3:20, 21).John understood it. ( Mk. 1:4 Jn. 3:23).
The New Testament teaches that water baptism is an immersion in water for unto the remission of sins by faith in the operation of God in the cleansing power of the blood of Christ.( I Pet. 3:21 Acts 8:33-36, Acts 2;38, Col. 2:12,Rev. 1;5).
New Testament baptism is a washing of water by the word. ( Eph. 5:26). Water puts one in contact with the blood of Christ.( Rev.1:5, Romans 6:3-5, Acts 22:16).The Bible teaches that the meaning of water baptism in the new testament is an immersion, burial, overwhelming in water. The Old laws of purification have been nailed to the cross. ( Col. 2:14, Eph. 2:15). They are without authority for today, have no power to cleanse from sin, and are ineffective to justifiy one before God. ( Mat. 28:18 -20, Hebrews `10:1-4 Gal. 5:4; 3:11). The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. This is accomplished in the water Baptism. (Gal. 3:26-29).Salvation is IN Christ.( IITim. 2:10).
Frank

 

Chem, You have accused Frank of lying in another post because he disagreed with your use of BGAD lexicon. Yet it is you that has lied about the use of baptidzo in the lexicon, pulling obscure meanings out of the lexicons, where the lexicons plainly show that the primary meaning of baptidzo is to immerse. You have lost your case. You pride does not allow you to admit it.
DHK

 

Even Calvin, the infant baptizer that he was, agreed that baptidzo, if properly translated would mean immerse.

 

dhk:
Thanks, for the support!. I appreciate your honesty. We may not see eye to eye on everything but your gentleness in this matter is noted by yours truly. Again, thanks.
Frank

 

Obscure, hardly, just about every lexicon I have used and cited listed ritual washing as a meaning for βαπτισω.

The Bible verses provided have proved absolutely nothing one way or the other, particularly when taking into account all of the lexical evidence. If you ignore most of the lexical evidence, which you have, then you can make a case one way or another.

By translating βαπτισω stickly as immersion you lose the continuity of the idea that it brings with it the cleansing power of the Blood of Christ, because you can immerse something and still not clean it.

I accused him of lieing because soon after posting a list of people who supposedly agreed with him, he said he wasn't going to rely on names to back his argument, now just how is that not supposed to come off as a lie.

 

By translating βαπτισω stickly as immersion you lose the continuity of the idea that it brings with it the cleansing power of the Blood of Christ, because you can immerse something and still not clean it.
</font>[/QUOTE]Most of the lexicons say concerning the word baptidzo: immerse, dip, immerge, submerge, wash.

You seem to want to make the meaning of baptidzo confined (by the above statement) immerse and wash, as if evidence must be given to show that both must be done at the same time. That is not the case.
When Jonah was in the whale for three days and three nights, I don't thing he was washing himself with the vomit of the whale. When Christ was in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights I don't think that he was washing himself with the elements of the earth. Yet both of these are a picture of immersion, as has been demonstrated by dictionary meanings.
DHK

 

First he couldn't have washed himself in whale vomit, one it is doubtful he was swallowed by a whale, two it ain't vomit until it leaves via the mouth. Second (and seriously) Jonah's time in the stomach of the fish is likened to Sheol and is a prophecy of the time Christ would spend dead and His descent to the prison(1 Pet. 3:19). Third Christ's burial does not imply immersion, because synonyms are not always equal which is the case here. The only way we were buried with Jesus is because we were baptized into His death, which of course happened before his burial(Rm 6). BTW one does not have to be immersed to drown, it takes less than a quart (i can't remember exact amount).

That was just an inventive way of saying plz turn off the caps lock. When chatting/posting online it does matter because it is the typing equivalent of yelling. Plus, all caps tends to be hard to read.

To answer your question, Yes Jesus came and found me when I needed Him most.

 

Well I guess I could chalk that up as another thing Calvin got wrong.

 

Frank, you would have made a great Pharisee.

[ June 11, 2002, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]