Zero point me telling you how I know.How do you know?
Stranger
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Zero point me telling you how I know.How do you know?
Stranger
They were not water baptised the were baptised into Christ and saved through believing in Him41So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them.
so i'm reading that they were baptized, not sure how you are getting to "they were saved" myself. They were "added to them," which is not the same thing imo.
Jesus also said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mk 16:16)
he didn't say what happens to those who believe and don't get baptised. But a refusal to be baptised when presented with the need for it is disobedience and disbelief.
Yes, I would like to know that also.
yes but back then when John the Baptist and those before him were baptizing did they claim salvation? also before Christ what was the baptism in water for? or mean? just what was being baptized in water all about before the Catholic Church decided to put its two cents in?
gotta wonder, then, how it became "saved from hell-fire," huh.Acts 2
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Peter tells them that if they get baptised their sins will be forgiven (vs 38); they will receive the Holy Spirit (vs 39); they will be saved from this crooked generation (vs 40).
They were added to the Church.
That's salvation.
hmm, interesting! i am inclined to agree, yet the NT seems to compel a perspective of physically dunking in water, that is hard to square spiritually imo. Despite the obvious symbology of "water."They were not water baptised the were baptised into Christ and saved through believing in Him
Because it was you and sranger who want to know I really dont see any point telling either of you how I know.
But lets see if you really want to know.
Into what did the 3000 get baptized on the day of Pentecost
What we are discussing in this thread is Christian baptism, instituted by Jesus Christ.
John's baptism comes from the Jewish tevilah (ritual bathing) in a mikvah (ritual bath). which goes right back to the book of Leviticus.There seem to be three occasions where a mikvar is required in Leviticus; those involving birth (including sex and menstruation); death (including skin diseases) and coming into the presence of God. They seem to be a reminder of our uncleanness and the need for purification. So the tevilar/mikvar also became a symbol of repentance, of expressing faith that cleansing was available and of asking for it. Hence John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan as a baptism of repentance. But that was not salvific.
Jesus took this Jewish ritual and made it a Christian one (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16) but making the effects more powerful because it is Jesus who is the prime baptiser. We can see the three purposes I noted above in Christian baptism.
When a Gentile became a Jew the formal entry ritual included a form of words, a tevilah and - for men - circumcision. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) decided circumcision was no longer required. A form of words remained (I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - see Mt 28:19) and the ritual bathing remained in the form of baptism as we know it.
There was another use for the tevilah. When a Jewish Rabbi took on a student as a disciple the Rabbi supervised the student taking a tevilar in his name (Mikvah). Thus you became cleansed from your old life (born again) with your Rabbi as your spiritual father, and you were to believe and observe everything he taught you, and obey his commands. and you were to believe and observe everything he taught you, and obey his commands.
Thus in Christian baptism we become cleansed from our old life, with Jesus as our Rabbi, and we promise to believe and obey him. Also the reference to being baptised in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5)
nope you are discussing the need for baptism by water for salvation of which the others say isn't necessary, and you are headed toward showing according to Catholicism that it is necessary, using scripture to justify that theology. where you are headed isn't new in these discussions. your opening statement in this posting is a standard attempt to sets up the justification for the catholic church's version and self declared "authority to interpret".
the baptism by water is an open public act of repentance, turning from one way toward God in this case. been done in Israeli culture who knows how long. turning in the heart toward God in repentance is required to be saved for sure, but the water isn't. baptism of the Holy Spirit is. and needless to say without repentance the baptism in the Holy Spirit wouldn't come to pass.
the theme of the day was "repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand" a John the Baptist quote and repeated by Jesus Himself. hence the open act of repentance baptism by water. its my understanding in that day they had many pools for such activity, but John chose the Jordon instead. could be because those who used them were a lot like water baptized person that call themselves Christians today.
you know just as well as anyone that many have been baptized by water in whatever way and they are no where close to being saved or born of the Holy Spirit. so the act of baptism by water is of no effect of its own nor has any intrinsic power to save a soul. but baptism in the Holy Spirit is the Power of salvation, and is as effective as it gets.
Quite wrong. But as you provide no evidence to back up your assertion I have no need to go further in reply.
Christian baptism, the one that Jesus commanded, the one that the apostles practiced, the one that the Church has pracrticed for 2,000 years, is different from John' baptism. That is clearly shown in Acts 19 where twelve men had only been baptised with John's baptism. Paul had them baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus". This is the same baptism that 3,000 were baptised at Pentecost, that Cornelius and his household were baptised (Acts 10:48) and with which Philip baptised (Acts 8:16).
An assertion for which you provide no evidence.
That add nothing to the discussion
Quite wrong. But as you provide no evidence to back up your assertion I have no need to go further in reply.
Christian baptism, the one that Jesus commanded, the one that the apostles practiced, the one that the Church has pracrticed for 2,000 years, is different from John' baptism. That is clearly shown in Acts 19 where twelve men had only been baptised with John's baptism. Paul had them baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus".
They were not water baptised the were baptised into Christ and saved through believing in Him
I on the otherhand don't understand your confusion, Wormwood.This makes zero sense to me. How can you command someone to "repent and be baptized" if baptism has nothing to do with a response they are capable of making? Clearly they were water baptized. You can't command someone to be Spirit baptized anymore than you can command the wind to change directions.
I also disagree with the notion that baptism is unnecessary but should be done. Where do we get the notion that it is unnecessary? Jesus commanded it. The early church practiced it. Ananias told Paul to "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16) Paul declared that it is in baptism we are united in Christ's death (Rom. 6:1-3), united with Christ (Gal. 3:27), and raised with him (Col 2:12). Peter also says it "saves you" (1 Peter 3:21). So, I am wondering how people can see these commands as unnecessary or the declarations about what happens in baptism as invalid.
Obviously, we are saved by grace through faith. Yet, baptism is a response that God has required of those who desire to put their faith in Jesus Christ. Nowhere do these verses say baptism "symbolizes" being buried, raised or united with Christ. Rather they say, very explicitly, "you were raised with him in baptism...." etc. Thus, I believe that we should understand that something very significant happens in baptism for those who cry out to God for cleansing by faith in Jesus Christ. I can read these texts no other way. In fact, the Church believed this for 1500 years until Zwingli declared baptism to be a "work" in contrast to "faith." Luther (the sola fide pioneer) even rejected this notion and declared that "if baptism is a work, it is God's work."
In sum, I don't think we should dismiss baptism as unnecessary. It is not a "work" and neither is it oppositional to salvation by faith. And to suggest that this baptism is "spiritual" only in nature is completely unsupported by the NT. You cannot spiritually baptize disciples of all nations. You cannot command people to repent and be spiritually baptized. Moreover, it is very evident throughout Acts that the early church was immersing people in water as their "baptism." Thus, it would seem to me that theological agendas alone would be the only reason for eliminating water from the discussions of baptism in the narratives of Acts. I don't think water has to be specifically mentioned in every occasion to validate its presence. Especially when there is no legitimate reason for implying its absence. In English, if I write, "Joe dunked me" then we all (rightly) assume I was dunked in water. We wouldn't assume it was coffee, syrup or into a spirit/Spirit unless I specifically mentioned as much in the context. The Greeks used the transliterated word "baptizo" the same way. It was not a "spiritual" word. It was a common word that indicated being dunked or dipped. Again, water is implied unless the context says otherwise.
Just some of my thoughts.
He said "they" but didn't specify. So yes he had a previous post on his mind. But... He didn't quote it.They were not water baptised the were baptised into Christ and saved through believing in Hi
Into what did the 3000 get baptized on the day of PentecostThis makes zero sense to me. How can you command someone to "repent and be baptized" if baptism has nothing to do with a response they are capable of making? Clearly they were water baptized. You can't command someone to be Spirit baptized anymore than you can command the wind to change directions.
I also disagree with the notion that baptism is unnecessary but should be done. Where do we get the notion that it is unnecessary? Jesus commanded it. The early church practiced it. Ananias told Paul to "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16) Paul declared that it is in baptism we are united in Christ's death (Rom. 6:1-3), united with Christ (Gal. 3:27), and raised with him (Col 2:12). Peter also says it "saves you" (1 Peter 3:21). So, I am wondering how people can see these commands as unnecessary or the declarations about what happens in baptism as invalid.
Obviously, we are saved by grace through faith. Yet, baptism is a response that God has required of those who desire to put their faith in Jesus Christ. Nowhere do these verses say baptism "symbolizes" being buried, raised or united with Christ. Rather they say, very explicitly, "you were raised with him in baptism...." etc. Thus, I believe that we should understand that something very significant happens in baptism for those who cry out to God for cleansing by faith in Jesus Christ. I can read these texts no other way. In fact, the Church believed this for 1500 years until Zwingli declared baptism to be a "work" in contrast to "faith." Luther (the sola fide pioneer) even rejected this notion and declared that "if baptism is a work, it is God's work."
In sum, I don't think we should dismiss baptism as unnecessary. It is not a "work" and neither is it oppositional to salvation by faith. And to suggest that this baptism is "spiritual" only in nature is completely unsupported by the NT. You cannot spiritually baptize disciples of all nations. You cannot command people to repent and be spiritually baptized. Moreover, it is very evident throughout Acts that the early church was immersing people in water as their "baptism." Thus, it would seem to me that theological agendas alone would be the only reason for eliminating water from the discussions of baptism in the narratives of Acts. I don't think water has to be specifically mentioned in every occasion to validate its presence. Especially when there is no legitimate reason for implying its absence. In English, if I write, "Joe dunked me" then we all (rightly) assume I was dunked in water. We wouldn't assume it was coffee, syrup or into a spirit/Spirit unless I specifically mentioned as much in the context. The Greeks used the transliterated word "baptizo" the same way. It was not a "spiritual" word. It was a common word that indicated being dunked or dipped. Again, water is implied unless the context says otherwise.
Just some of my thoughts.
I find it interesting that water was never mentioned in acts 19. Nor at pentacost in chapter 2. Again, there were some that were baptized in water. No problem with that at all.
In post #28 I said:
What did Peter mean by 'being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ'?
In Acts 10:46-48 we read "Then Peter declared, "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. "
For Peter, being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ means being baptised in water.
Peter also connects baptism with water in 1Pet 3:20-21.
Therefore, In Acts 2, when Peter said "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." He must have meant baptism with water.
Again in post #28 I said:
If we look at Acts 8 we find Philip baptising people "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (vs 15). What did baptism mean to Philip? We find out in vs 36-38 and it's baptism in water.
Thus in both Acts 8 and Acts 10 we see that baptism in the name of Jesus means being baptised with water.
Therefore in Acts 19 when Paul has the twelve men baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus"it means baptised in water.