SpiritualMadMan
New Member
So, Romans 10:9-10 is inadequate and a lie if used for a salvation Sermon?
Mike Sr.
Mike Sr.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Water and Blood
- Thread starter mman
- Start date
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Don't blame you at all... 
Mike Sr.
Mike Sr.
Scripture does not contradict itself. Rom 10:9-10 is in perfect and complete harmony with Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, and Acts 22:16, and Rom 6:1-17.
There is no contradiction there, but if we only hold to one of God's instructions and ignore the rest, then can we expect to be pleasing to God?
Jesus said, “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?" - Luke 6:46. Do you really think if you can hold to one verse and ignore the rest?
How absurd it would be for a person to claim to make Jesus Lord of their life, yet refuse to accept what He has said.
Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". I get ridiculed for using this verse so much, but it is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.
There is not one verse in scripture that contradicts this verse or negates this verse.
Therefore, this verse is either wrong, misleading, or can be accepted as truth. This is not all that God has said on this subject, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY INCLUDED IN WHAT HE SAID ON THIS SUBJECT.
By what authority can anyone say that Jesus didn't really mean what He said or Jesus was wrong?
Sure you have those who want to accept it and the only way they can is to claim this is not water baptism, but in the other posts and even the initial post on this thread, that has been addressed.
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
I did a Word search of the KJV and found only two references that specifically stated the formula repent and be Baptized...
I found a host of other references that intimated that Baptizm was not essential...
If Baptism is essential why wasn't it on the list of things for gentiles believers handed down by the Jerusalem Council?
Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
If Baptism is essential then why is it the baptism in the Holy Spirit that quieted the Council instead of them being Batized in Water?
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
In fact it appears that Baptism, far from being essential, was considered a priviledge...
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
In fact there are more scriptures that plainly state we aren't saved unless we endure to the end than say we have to be baptized!
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
And, while the Phillipian Jailer was Baptized. It was not part of the command to be saved...
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
And, here we are saved by Hope!
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Check this out...
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Or here where it's the Word that saes you:
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Here it's the Power of God that Saves
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
By two or three witnesses shall every matter be established...
I would agree that I could make a doctrine on the power of your two proof texts...
**IF**
There were not amplifying (potentially) contradictory scriptures.
And, there are far far more of them that specifically state the basis of Being Saved without Water Immersion Baptism than the two that specifically state that it is...
Note also that the two times Baptsm is required it is required of Jewish Converts...
It is never required of Gentile Believers.
So, while I gladly proclaim and accept that Water Baptism is an important step of confession and growth in a believers Life...
I do not believe, nor will I teach that it is an essential part of Salvation.
Mike Sr.
I found a host of other references that intimated that Baptizm was not essential...
If Baptism is essential why wasn't it on the list of things for gentiles believers handed down by the Jerusalem Council?
Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
If Baptism is essential then why is it the baptism in the Holy Spirit that quieted the Council instead of them being Batized in Water?
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
In fact it appears that Baptism, far from being essential, was considered a priviledge...
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
In fact there are more scriptures that plainly state we aren't saved unless we endure to the end than say we have to be baptized!
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
And, while the Phillipian Jailer was Baptized. It was not part of the command to be saved...
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
And, here we are saved by Hope!
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Check this out...
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Or here where it's the Word that saes you:
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Here it's the Power of God that Saves
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
By two or three witnesses shall every matter be established...
I would agree that I could make a doctrine on the power of your two proof texts...
**IF**
There were not amplifying (potentially) contradictory scriptures.
And, there are far far more of them that specifically state the basis of Being Saved without Water Immersion Baptism than the two that specifically state that it is...
Note also that the two times Baptsm is required it is required of Jewish Converts...
It is never required of Gentile Believers.
So, while I gladly proclaim and accept that Water Baptism is an important step of confession and growth in a believers Life...
I do not believe, nor will I teach that it is an essential part of Salvation.
Mike Sr.
So, how many times does God have to say something for you to believe it?
If you want to truly understand the purpose of baptism, you have to go the the passages that talk about baptism.
You mentioned that most places it didn't seem essential, therefore, you must have found some where it did appear essential. Do you just ignore them.
You made a statement, "If Baptism is essential why wasn't it on the list of things for gentiles believers handed down by the Jerusalem Council?"
I read nothing in Acts 15 concerning repentance or confession either, so by your logic, those aren't important.
It wasn't on the list because they had already been baptized. Baptism on that list would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
Christ blood is shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28).
Baptism if for every nation, every creature. Have you not read Matt 28:18-20 or Mark 16:15-16.
Preaching Jesus includes instruction for water baptism (See Acts 8).
Gal 3:26-27 all were childern the same way, through faith because they had been baptized into Christ, doesn't make a difference whether you are Jew or Greek.
I Pet 3:20-21 is clearly talking about water baptism.
Gotta run. More later.
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Well,
You have not refuted any of my lines of thinking...
Nor have you postulated a reasonable defense for your position.
I have shown that there is insufficient evidence to make Water Imersion Baptism a requirement for Salvation...
I did not expect to change your mind...
But, I would have liked a bit more of a discussion...
A True debate not a dogmatic recitation of a unique sect's interpretation...
I do not disagree that Water Imersion Baptism is an important step in the life of a Believer...
But, it is not a make or break heaven issue...
As a Pentecostal there are more scriptures for making a similar argument for having to be Baptized in the Holy Ghost with Speaking in Tongues to be saved...
But, I do not believe that is the case, either...
(that being Baptised in the holy Spirit and Speaking in other Tongues is a salvation issue)
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Speaking in Tongues is less of a "Work" than Water Baptism...
But, Water Baptism is clearly a physical work...
Of course if I did make the Tongues argument you'd reject it, and rightly so, on the same grounds I am rejecting yours...
So, much for reciprocity and objectivity...
Sad, very sad...
I'm done...
Mike Sr.
You have not refuted any of my lines of thinking...
Nor have you postulated a reasonable defense for your position.
I have shown that there is insufficient evidence to make Water Imersion Baptism a requirement for Salvation...
I did not expect to change your mind...
But, I would have liked a bit more of a discussion...
A True debate not a dogmatic recitation of a unique sect's interpretation...
I do not disagree that Water Imersion Baptism is an important step in the life of a Believer...
But, it is not a make or break heaven issue...
As a Pentecostal there are more scriptures for making a similar argument for having to be Baptized in the Holy Ghost with Speaking in Tongues to be saved...
But, I do not believe that is the case, either...
(that being Baptised in the holy Spirit and Speaking in other Tongues is a salvation issue)
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Speaking in Tongues is less of a "Work" than Water Baptism...
But, Water Baptism is clearly a physical work...
Of course if I did make the Tongues argument you'd reject it, and rightly so, on the same grounds I am rejecting yours...
So, much for reciprocity and objectivity...
Sad, very sad...
I'm done...
Mike Sr.
Snitzelhoff
New Member
By the line of thinking I am seeing presented, it is obvious that, in addition to baptism, the Churches of Christ should add the Lord's Supper to the things required for salvation.
Now, as a baptistic Christian, I see baptism and the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic in nature. As a Church of Christer, I was forced to see a dichotomy: that baptism was not merely symbolic, but the Lord's Supper was. The Bible, however, does not express the Lord's Supper as a purely symbolic act any more than it does baptism. Let us hear what it says on the matter:
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."--Luke 22:20-21
Jesus referred to the cup and the bread of Communion as His own body and blood. He also said in John 6:53-54:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinkethy my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
This Lord's Supper thing is serious stuff. Jesus said consuming His body and blood is ESSENTIAL to salvation. But what if someone dies before he can partake? Can he still be saved if he's heard, believed, repented, confessed, been baptized, and lived faithfully until that point?
Now, I hope you'll agree with me that the Lord's Supper is in no way required for salvation (after all, it wouldn't fit into the Five Finger Exercise). But if you do agree, then you, too, see a dichotomy that the Scriptures do not make. Either both are purely symbolic of another reality--Christ's death for us, and our death to sin--or both ARE the reality (or the means of effecting it in our lives).
What say ye?
Michael
Now, as a baptistic Christian, I see baptism and the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic in nature. As a Church of Christer, I was forced to see a dichotomy: that baptism was not merely symbolic, but the Lord's Supper was. The Bible, however, does not express the Lord's Supper as a purely symbolic act any more than it does baptism. Let us hear what it says on the matter:
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."--Luke 22:20-21
Jesus referred to the cup and the bread of Communion as His own body and blood. He also said in John 6:53-54:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinkethy my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
This Lord's Supper thing is serious stuff. Jesus said consuming His body and blood is ESSENTIAL to salvation. But what if someone dies before he can partake? Can he still be saved if he's heard, believed, repented, confessed, been baptized, and lived faithfully until that point?
Now, I hope you'll agree with me that the Lord's Supper is in no way required for salvation (after all, it wouldn't fit into the Five Finger Exercise). But if you do agree, then you, too, see a dichotomy that the Scriptures do not make. Either both are purely symbolic of another reality--Christ's death for us, and our death to sin--or both ARE the reality (or the means of effecting it in our lives).
What say ye?
Michael
I'm sorry you failed to see the logic.
You, have not clearly laid out your position. You have not presented one verse that negates Mark 16:16.
I've presented this time and time again. Here it is in a nutshell.
Jesus commanded his apostles to preach the gospel to EVERYONE, those who believed and were baptized would be saved (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:16).
This command is like a "do-loop" because those that were baptized were to be taught all things that Jesus had commanded them. Therefore, one of things, in fact His last command was to go teach and baptize. So, this is an ongoing command. Therefore, water baptism is the one baptism mentioned in Eph 4:5.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit was never a command, but was a promise made by Jesus. You cannot baptize others with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, baptism with the Holy Spirit could not be what Jesus was commanding.
Jesus told the apostles they would be "witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
Acts 2 was the fisrt time the apostles preached following the commission given to them by Jesus.
Some of the people obviously believed his message about Jesus and asked, "What must we do?" - Acts 2:37
Peter told them there was something they needed to do. Yes, these believers were told they had to do something. They were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38).
This same message was preached to the entire world.
We have an example of the people of city of Samaria. "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them." - Acts 8:5
What was the resulting action for those who believed this preaching of Christ? "But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized." - Acts 8:12
Why would they be baptized if the preaching of Christ contained no instructions for water baptism? That makes no sense.
Philip then was called away on a special mission. The Holy Spirit must have thought Philip was up to the job or Philip would not have been sent.
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” - Acts 8:35-36
Philip no doubt preached the same message about Christ because the first words out of the Eunuch's mouth are asking about water baptism.
The message of Christ has not changed. If the Christ you preach does not include instructions for water baptism, then you preach a different Christ.
The Philipian jailer is often used as a "proof text" that baptism is not required. A closer examination shows it is a "proof text" for baptism.
"And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."
He was told to believe and he would be saved. Believe what? They hadn't spoken anything to him yet. They preached the word of the Lord to him. He was baptized. Again, we have someone being baptized after hearing the word of the Lord. Then he rejoiced having believed. What? Why did it say he rejoiced? Having believed. When did he rejoice? After he was baptized.
I could go on and on. Your statement about not having any examples of Gentiles being baptized in water was obviously made in ignorance. There are examples.
Faith is doing what God said. Read Heb 11. Explain to me how the walls of Jericho fell by faith and I want you to show how any action on their part was NOT required.
You say baptism is a work. By whatever definition you use to say baptism is a work, then confession is also a work by that same definition.
The bible does say baptism involves work. Yes. Do you know where? Let's read it together, " buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." - Col 2:12
So baptism is a work of God, not man. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would think there was any merit in being dipped in water. That doesn't earn me anything. No baptism is through faith. God said to do it, so I do it.
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. - Gal 3:26-27.
There is but one baptism (Eph 4:5). While there have been several there is but one now.
You cannot show where baptism in water ever ceased or the never-ending command in Matt 28:18-20 was terminated.
I Pet 3:20-21 "...in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
It boils down to do you believe Jesus or not when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". - Mark 16:16.
Eph 2:8-9 does not negate this verse. It does not contradict this verse. It is in perfect and complete harmony with this verse.
Baptism symbolic? If you mean,
"3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." - Rom 6:3-4
is symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord, and we obey a form of this in baptism:
(v17) But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered
Then I agree with you. If you mean that it is symbolic that our sins are already forgiven, then that is contrary to the scriptures.
Can you understand the meaning of "for the remission of sins" in Matt 26:28? Was this symbolic? Was Jesus blood shed because people's sins had already been forgiven? Well, if you can understand it there, then you can understand it in Acts 2:38, because it is the SAME GREEK PHRASE.
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Mman, if you refuted my argument, I didn't see it. You rehashed your old arguments, which I have left others to address (repeating their input would add nothing to the discussion). I didn't mention Acts 2:38 or Matthew 26:28.
However, I will address that.
"Eis" can mean either "because of" or "for the purpose of." I don't see the problem with the phrase "for the forgiveness (remission, whatever) of sins" meaning, in one context, "for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins," and in another, "because of the forgiveness of sins." So, honestly, I don't see the big deal. Christ's death was for the purpose of the forgiveness of our sins. Our baptism is because of the sins that He's forgiven.
My understanding of Acts 2:38 reconciles that "problem" as well, and that is that, in the Greek, because of the way it was phrased, "repent" and "the remission of your sins" are connected, whereas "be baptized" is not. This view is supported by Luke 3:3, when John was said to preach the baptism of "repentance for the remission of sins." There, the same phraseology is used, but the order is changed, and repentance is unambiguously connected with remission of sins, of which baptism is a reflection.
Now, on to the actual subject of my post:
I mean that baptism is symbolic in the same way the Lord's Supper is. Take that as you will, or as you see in the Scriptures. After all, a "plain reading" of the Scriptures, based on what Jesus said, would certainly lend salvific properties to the Lord's Supper. Yet, I think we can agree that there is something more--that it's not the act of Communion itself that saves, but the spiritual reality that it represents.
Or, perhaps, you should add another thing to check off on the list of things to do to become a Christian.
Michael
However, I will address that.
"Eis" can mean either "because of" or "for the purpose of." I don't see the problem with the phrase "for the forgiveness (remission, whatever) of sins" meaning, in one context, "for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins," and in another, "because of the forgiveness of sins." So, honestly, I don't see the big deal. Christ's death was for the purpose of the forgiveness of our sins. Our baptism is because of the sins that He's forgiven.
My understanding of Acts 2:38 reconciles that "problem" as well, and that is that, in the Greek, because of the way it was phrased, "repent" and "the remission of your sins" are connected, whereas "be baptized" is not. This view is supported by Luke 3:3, when John was said to preach the baptism of "repentance for the remission of sins." There, the same phraseology is used, but the order is changed, and repentance is unambiguously connected with remission of sins, of which baptism is a reflection.
Now, on to the actual subject of my post:
I mean that baptism is symbolic in the same way the Lord's Supper is. Take that as you will, or as you see in the Scriptures. After all, a "plain reading" of the Scriptures, based on what Jesus said, would certainly lend salvific properties to the Lord's Supper. Yet, I think we can agree that there is something more--that it's not the act of Communion itself that saves, but the spiritual reality that it represents.
Or, perhaps, you should add another thing to check off on the list of things to do to become a Christian.
Michael
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That is correct -- Peter says "NOT the sacramental touching of water to the flesh" (mere water baptism) but "The APPEAL TO GOD for a clean conscience" -
Paul says that when we BELIEVE we are saved in Romans 10.
There is no such thing as "saved and yet unforgiven" as some have tried to imagine.
But to their credit -- there IS such a thing as saved and in need of "experiencing" the full assurance of forgivness received. WE see that in 2John 2 - "if anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father" -- "if WE confess our sins HE IS faithful and just to forgive us our sins AND to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".
I do not deny the benefit of Baptism or of footwashing in terms of "experiencing" the full promise of assurance and "peace" with God claimed in the Gospel. But the fact of salvation at the time we believe shows that real forgiveness has taken place then --
It is not the unbeliever that follows His Lord in Baptism - it is the believer.
(It was innevitable - SFC and I could not continue to "dissagree on everything")
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Those who believe in "Baptismal regeneration" do not understand the full problem of sin and the full scope of the solution.
Romans 3 defines the "problem" as the depravity of man - the wicked man is simply NOT GOING to go and be baptized and then "see if you don't feel more like a Christian after that".
The Saved believer CAN NOT be accepted by God as "saved" apart from forgiveness!
This was true in EVERY age of mankind! This is saving faith model (seen in Romans 10)is the way the ONE gospel has worked in all ages!
IN Christ,
Bob
Romans 3 defines the "problem" as the depravity of man - the wicked man is simply NOT GOING to go and be baptized and then "see if you don't feel more like a Christian after that".
The Saved believer CAN NOT be accepted by God as "saved" apart from forgiveness!
This was true in EVERY age of mankind! This is saving faith model (seen in Romans 10)is the way the ONE gospel has worked in all ages!
IN Christ,
Bob
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
BobRyan,
I liked your posts and can't think of a thing to add to them!
Mike Sr.
I liked your posts and can't think of a thing to add to them!
Mike Sr.
Find one time where "eis" wsa ever translated as because. It is used over 1700 times so that should be easy for you.
You can't do it because it is NEVER ONCE TRANSLATED AS "BECAUSE"!!!!
Oh, I want it to mean because of in Acts 2:28, therefore it means because of and in Matt 26:28 I want it to mean for, therefore it means before??? Is that really your only rationale????
It is the same Greek phase with the same meaning.
Consider the following:
1. Arndt & Gingrich define the term in Acts 2:38 to mean “in order to.” They translate the entire phrase eis aphesin hamartion as ‘for the forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven’ (p. 228).
2. Thayer himself rendered the expression eis aphesin hamartion as “to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (p. 94; emp. added). That is, it is a prospective phrase, not retrospective!
3. In the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Balz, p. 399), Elliger cites Acts 2:38 as an example of eis being used “to indicate [the] purpose” of the act under consideration.
4. Ceslas Spicq noted regarding Acts 2:38, “Water baptism is a means of realizing this conversion, and its goal – something altogether new – is a washing, ‘the remission of sins’” (p. 242; emp. added).
5. Finally, Doctor Daniel B. Wallace has stated in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics that the “causal” use of eis in Acts 2:38 (i.e., “because of” instead of “in order to”) has been demonstrated to fail in terms of linguistic evidence (p. 370)
The baptism commanded by Peter was for the purpose of obtaining the remission of sins by faithful obedience to the gospel call. The meaning of the verse is clear – in English and Greek.
If one’s theological position has the force of divine revelation behind it, one doesn’t need to resort to such gross manipulation. And if it doesn’t, it should be abandoned for the sake of truth.
If you read both Acts 10 and Acts 11 it is clear that your statements are not valid. I don't have the proper time to list all the passages, but they are found in the two chapters.
Cornelius was told to call for Peter "he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them" - Acts 11:14-15
Now, if the HS fell on them as he began to speak, then it fell on them before they believed. You cannot believe in what you have not heard. Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus.
Your model does not fit the events in Acts 8. Why? It does not fit Acts 19, either. Why? It does not fit the 3000 on the day of pentecost in Acts 2. Why?
So, is a person saved before or after they repent? Can a person repent who does not believe? Is repentance really necessary?
More later.
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Mman,
Matthew 12:24--"The men of Ninveveh... repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas."
Did they repent in order to hear the preaching of Jonah, Mman, or because of it?
You were right; with 1700-plus to pick from, that WAS easy!
I'll respond to the rest later, but my case is closed on the meaning of "eis."
Michael
Perhaps it's never translated as the word "because," but:
Matthew 12:24--"The men of Ninveveh... repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas."
Did they repent in order to hear the preaching of Jonah, Mman, or because of it?
You were right; with 1700-plus to pick from, that WAS easy!
I'll respond to the rest later, but my case is closed on the meaning of "eis."
Michael
Snitzelhoff
New Member
A hearty amen to you on that one. The rest of that post is fairly well answered by my last post, so I'll move on to your next one.
Yep. He just got past the part about Jesus, probably preaching for no more than thirty seconds, from what I see. That's barely the beginning of a sermon. Unless, of course, you're positing a contradiction between Acts 10 and Acts 11.
They heard, believed, and received the Holy Spirit, the mark of salvation. Then, like all good Christians, they were baptized.
Acts 8, if you recall, took place with Samaritans, upon whom the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out in general. Therefore, for them to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit as the mark of salvation required a special blessing (the laying on of the Apostles' hands).
Acts 19 actually supports our view, Mman. You see, the disciples of John were clearly trusting in their baptism rather than in the saving power of Jesus Christ (see Acts 19:4). They didn't understand that the purpose of John's preaching and baptism was to direct faith toward Christ. Obviously, they hadn't received the Holy Ghost since they believed, since they weren't trusting in Christ, but their baptism. Having been baptized for the wrong reason, they consented to re-baptism.
Acts 2 has been beaten to death, but here goes. You know where I stand on Acts 2:38, the Scriptural support for it, and both views concerning the Greek I see as valid, so let us proceed. Acts 2:41 says that those who gladly received his word were baptized. Whether they were saved or unsaved prior to being dunked is not articulated in the passage, and, therefore, is contingent upon the view of verse 38.
We both know that the Greek word for repentance, "metanoia," means a changing of one's decision. Faith and repentance are flip-sides of the same coin, in that faith is trusting Christ for salvation, and repentance is no longer trusting anything anything else. So, in answer to your question, the condition for salvation is trusting Christ alone for it, consisting of faith and repentance.
Any more questions?
Michael
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Oh, yeah, one more thing.
You still haven't answered my question about why the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic and baptism is not, based on Scripture.
Michael
You still haven't answered my question about why the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic and baptism is not, based on Scripture.
Michael