Baptism: Its Meaning and Significance

[Wormwood]

Of cause you don't go by personal experience, Because you don't have any.
I have explained what Mk 16: 16, And 1 Pet 3: 21 mean.

To be precise, I said I do not go by "your" personal experience. However, I must say that was somewhat of a low blow. Nothing like discussing Scripture to have someone malign your faith and relationship with God.

To understand the Bible, You have to know who is doing the talking, You need to know when it's God, A Biblical character, Or when it's the Bible translators.
And the original Greek texts say Baptism DOESN'T save...So it isn't the opposite of what I say, You was nearly tight though, Just the wrong person, Because it's the opposite of what you say.
Every Greek word and meaning for baptism, Including, "Wash, Dip and bath", Is total immersion, As the part that is washed, dipped or bathed has to be completely covered with water.

Yes, I know how to do hermeneutics. Do you know Greek? Because the NA27 I read says, "Hos kai humas antitupon, nun sozei baptisma, ou sarkos apothesis hrupou alla suneideseos agathes eperotema eis Theon..." Now when I translate that it says, "Baptism, which is an antitype, also saves you. Not the removal of dirt from flesh but the request of a good concience toward God." So, "ou" the negative here is referring to the removal of the dirt...not the idea that baptism saves. Baptism does save, but its saving power is not by cleansing skin but the prayer expressed in it for cleansing.

Why would the Greek word for "Washing" In Titus 3: 3, have to be Pneuma ??.
It is the washing of regeneration by the Holy Ghost.
This is talking about the new birth, Not the baptism in the Holy Ghost,And we don't receive tongues until we are baptised in the Holy Ghost.

My point was that you are arguing that "batheing" in Titus 3:3 cant mean baptism, but are trying to argue that it DOES mean a spiritual act. So my point is, if this is a "spiritual regeneration" in mind with no connection to baptism, then why not say a "spirit of regeneration" rather than a batheing of regeneration. You are trying to say that water baptism can only refer to texts that use the word "baptism." This is silly. Its like saying that communion can only be in mind with the terms "bread" and "cup." One can describe baptism as immersion or batheing or washing. Its all related to water and the cleansing that comes through the act combined with faith. Your argument that a concept can only be

referred to with one word is simply ridiculous.

Titus 3: 5 certainly isn't talking about water baptism, Because if it was the Greek word would be,"Baptimos", Not "Loutron".

This is like saying that I can only refer to flying with the word flying. If an author wanted to talk about flying, he would say "flying" not soar or glide. Please.

 

[Alanforchrist]

To be precise, I said I do not go by "your" personal experience. However, I must say that was somewhat of a low blow. Nothing like discussing Scripture to have someone malign your faith and relationship with God.
Yes, I know how to do hermeneutics. Do you know Greek? Because the NA27 I read says, "Hos kai humas antitupon, nun sozei baptisma, ou sarkos apothesis hrupou alla suneideseos agathes eperotema eis Theon..." Now when I translate that it says, "Baptism, which is an antitype, also saves you. Not the removal of dirt from flesh but the request of a good concience toward God." So, "ou" the negative here is referring to the removal of the dirt...not the idea that baptism saves. Baptism does save, but its saving power is not by cleansing skin but the prayer expressed in it for cleansing.
My point was that you are arguing that "batheing" in Titus 3:3 cant mean baptism, but are trying to argue that it DOES mean a spiritual act. So my point is, if this is a "spiritual regeneration" in mind with no connection to baptism, then why not say a "spirit of regeneration" rather than a batheing of regeneration. You are trying to say that water baptism can only refer to texts that use the word "baptism." This is silly. Its like saying that communion can only be in mind with the terms "bread" and "cup." One can describe baptism as immersion or batheing or washing. Its all related to water and the cleansing that comes through the act combined with faith. Your argument that a concept can only be

referred to with one word is simply ridiculous.

This is like saying that I can only refer to flying with the word flying. If an author wanted to talk about flying, he would say "flying" not soar or glide. Please.

Gosh you are silly, Plus you don't know the Greek Yet you try to pretend you do.
If you did know the Greek, Or even the scriptures on face value, You would know that baptism doesn't save.
[A]The disciples were baptised but they weren't saved..PROOF [1].
Paul was saved three days befor he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, And that was before he was baptised in water..PROOF[2].
[C]The Gentiles in Acts 10, Were saved baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water. PROOF[3].

I think you should read the Bible and the greek..And come back with the truth..DON'T YOU?.

 

[aspen]

God chooses us - we do not choose Him. God is quite capable of choosing an infant for baptism.

 

[Mungo]

Baptism by immersion in water is a picture of your death with Christ and rebirth as a born again Christian. It is a witness to the world that you are a Christian.

You don't have to be baptised to go to heaven. For example the theif on the cross went to paridise the same day with Jesus but was never bapised with water. He was baptised by the Holy Spirit when he was saved by faith in Jesus.

Baptism is not just a witness to the world that you are a Christian. It's the normal way that Jesus gave us to be saved under the New Covenant.
Note I say normal because God is not is bound by it and can make exceptions.

Baptism became the normal way for salvation when Jeus died and rose again. The thief on the cross was living under the Old Covenant not the New Covenant.

There are texts that say Baptism is salvific (e.g. 1Pet 3:21). I don't know of any texts that say that Baptism is just a witness to being a Christian.

 

[Alanforchrist]

God chooses us - we do not choose Him. God is quite capable of choosing an infant for baptism.

To say God choses, Is to say He is a respecter of people, And that makes Him a sinner.
God does NOT chose us, We have to chose God.

God won't go against His MO for baptism.
[1]Hear the gospel.
[2]Believe is.
[3]Repent and be born again.
[4]Then one can be baptised,

How can an infant hear, believe, repent and get born again??.

Baptism is not just a witness to the world that you are a Christian. It's the normal way that Jesus gave us to be saved under the New Covenant.
Note I say normal because God is not is bound by it and can make exceptions.

Baptism became the normal way for salvation when Jeus died and rose again. The thief on the cross was living under the Old Covenant not the New Covenant.

There are texts that say Baptism is salvific (e.g. 1Pet 3:21). I don't know of any texts that say that Baptism is just a witness to being a Christian.

Don't you ever read the teachings that we post??.
Baptism DOESN'T SAVE.
Peter never said baptism saves, He said it is a figure, a symbol of salvation.

Peter knew baptism doesn't save, He said so in Acts 2: 38. If you knew what Peter actually said, you would know he doesn't believe baptism doesn't save.
So why would he say it does in 1 Pet 3: 21

 

[Mungo]

Don't you ever read the teachings that we post??.
Baptism DOESN'T SAVE.
Peter never said baptism saves, He said it is a figure, a symbol of salvation.

Peter knew baptism doesn't save, He said so in Acts 2: 38. If you knew what Peter actually said, you would know he doesn't believe baptism doesn't save.
So why would he say it does in 1 Pet 3: 21

Baptism saves and Peter said so in 1Pet 3:21

Noah's salvation was a pre-figuring of Baptism which saves us now
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, (RSV)
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (KJV)
to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism (YLT)
[SIZE=12pt]Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you [/SIZE](HCSB)
and this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also (NIV)

Why are you denying the clear statement of scripture?

Peter doesn't say that Baptism doesn't save us in Acts 2:38:
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.

Why are you in such denial of scripture?

 

[Alanforchrist]

Baptism saves and Peter said so in 1Pet 3:21

Noah's salvation was a pre-figuring of Baptism which saves us now
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, (RSV)
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (KJV)
to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism (YLT)
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (HCSB)
and this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also (NIV)

Why are you denying the clear statement of scripture?

Peter doesn't say that Baptism doesn't save us in Acts 2:38:
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.

Why are you in such denial of scripture?

It is obvious that you read my teachings, But you cannot understand the truth.
If you knew the Bible, [Which you don't] You would know tht water baptism doesn't save.
And if you knew the Greek, You would know there are subjects, persons and numbers, And they all have to agree to build a doctrine.
And in Acts 2: 38, "Repent ye, And Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, Both agree with each other in person and number,
But "Be baptised everyone of you", Does NOT agree with, Repent and receive the Hoy Ghost.
So this is the way the people would have heard and understood Peter,
"Repent for the remission of sins, And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,, The and then only can you be baptised.

So Peter di know that baptism doesn't save, And he should know, He was baptised but he wasn't saved until Jesus rose again.
So why would Peter contradict himself in 1 Pet 3: 21??.
I have told you what the Greek meaning for 1 Pet 3: 21 is,

To understand what God actually said, You need to know what the original Greek says, Because the translators have mislead us in places.

 

[Mungo]

It is obvious that you read my teachings, But you cannot understand the truth.
If you knew the Bible, [Which you don't] You would know tht water baptism doesn't save.
And if you knew the Greek, You would know there are subjects, persons and numbers, And they all have to agree to build a doctrine.
And in Acts 2: 38, "Repent ye, And Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, Both agree with each other in person and number,
But "Be baptised everyone of you", Does NOT agree with, Repent and receive the Hoy Ghost.
So this is the way the people would have heard and understood Peter,
"Repent for the remission of sins, And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,, The and then only can you be baptised.

So Peter di know that baptism doesn't save, And he should know, He was baptised but he wasn't saved until Jesus rose again.
So why would Peter contradict himself in 1 Pet 3: 21??.
I have told you what the Greek meaning for 1 Pet 3: 21 is,

To understand what God actually said, You need to know what the original Greek says, Because the translators have mislead us in places.

I know your theory - that every Translator got the translation wrong but you alone have the correct translation.

I'm not impressed by that argument.

 

[Wormwood]

Gosh you are silly, Plus you don't know the Greek Yet you try to pretend you do.
If you did know the Greek, Or even the scriptures on face value, You would know that baptism doesn't save.
[A]The disciples were baptised but they weren't saved..PROOF [1].
Paul was saved three days befor he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, And that was before he was baptised in water..PROOF[2].
[C]The Gentiles in Acts 10, Were saved baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water. PROOF[3].

I think you should read the Bible and the greek..And come back with the truth..DON'T YOU?.

Alan, this is a non-argument. Give me a text to work with if you have a Scriptural point to prove.
1. Yes, I do know Greek. I have taken numerous classes on both Greek and Hebrew (although my Hebrew is very weak). I am fairly proficient in Greek and have a hard copy of the NA27 I can read with little assistance. I understand the Greek words, grammar and sentence structure. The Greek very plainly says that baptism now saves you. If you want to prove by the original language that this is not the case, please make your argument. Backing away from the language to make some claims about other texts is not dealing with the linguistics of 1 Peter. I take this to mean that you concede the point.
2. The disciples were baptized but weren't saved? What are you talking about? John's baptism? No one is arguing that John's baptism saved. It was not a baptism related to identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
3. Actually, Scripture says the opposite. Acts 22 says that Ananias told Paul to "get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." So if Paul was saved three days prior in his encounter with Jesus, why would Ananias tell him to "wash his sins away"?
4. Yes, Acts 10 is an unusual event and Peter even refers to this as an unusual event in chapter 11. Acts 8 says that the Samaritans believed and were baptized but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. So should we argue that belief is unnecessary for salvation as well? If you follow the story of Acts and Jesus' command to the Apostles, this is the first time the Gospel is preached to non-Jews. Samaritans in Chapter 8 and Gentiles in chapter 10. God acted unusually in these incidences to have Peter as the primary leader of the Church to personally accept these non-Jews by faith. Peter had to lay hands on the Samaritans as a sign of acceptance and he was unwilling to baptize the Gentiles in chapter 10. This is why the Spirit fell and why Peter said, "Who was I to think that I could oppose God?" (Acts 11:18) I wouldn't recommend developing doctrines on such unique situations.

 

[Alanforchrist]

Baptism saves and Peter said so in 1Pet 3:21

Noah's salvation was a pre-figuring of Baptism which saves us now
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, (RSV)
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (KJV)
to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism (YLT)
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (HCSB)
and this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also (NIV)

Why are you denying the clear statement of scripture?

Peter doesn't say that Baptism doesn't save us in Acts 2:38:
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.

Why are you in such denial of scripture?

For the Biblical truth, Read my posy #46. AGAIN. and stop giving your ow WRONG understandings.
Your problem is, You believe the pope's porkies and the catholic con-men rather then the Biblical/Greek truth.

As for Acts 2: 38, The Bible translater say, "Repent and be baptised for the reission of sins", Not the original Greek text.
To understand the Bible, You need to know when it is God who is doing the talking, When it is a Biblical character doing the talking, Ans when it is the tranlater.mistranslating the truth.

I find it amazing that catholics take scriptures at face Value when it suits them But don't when it proves them wrong, For instance, catholics don't take Eph 2: 8-9, And Titus 3: 5 at face value, And they cannot, Because they know it will proves their doctrine wrong.

I know your theory - that every Translator got the translation wrong but you alone have the correct translation.

I'm not impressed by that argument.

Of cause your not impressed whith the truth, Because you know it proves you wrong, You cannot accept the truth, Otherwsie you'll have to admit the catholics are a false religion.

Alan, this is a non-argument. Give me a text to work with if you have a Scriptural point to prove.
1. Yes, I do know Greek. I have taken numerous classes on both Greek and Hebrew (although my Hebrew is very weak). I am fairly proficient in Greek and have a hard copy of the NA27 I can read with little assistance. I understand the Greek words, grammar and sentence structure. The Greek very plainly says that baptism now saves you. If you want to prove by the original language that this is not the case, please make your argument. Backing away from the language to make some claims about other texts is not dealing with the linguistics of 1 Peter. I take this to mean that you concede the point.
2. The disciples were baptized but weren't saved? What are you talking about? John's baptism? No one is arguing that John's baptism saved. It was not a baptism related to identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
3. Actually, Scripture says the opposite. Acts 22 says that Ananias told Paul to "get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." So if Paul was saved three days prior in his encounter with Jesus, why would Ananias tell him to "wash his sins away"?
4. Yes, Acts 10 is an unusual event and Peter even refers to this as an unusual event in chapter 11. Acts 8 says that the Samaritans believed and were baptized but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. So should we argue that belief is unnecessary for salvation as well? If you follow the story of Acts and Jesus' command to the Apostles, this is the first time the Gospel is preached to non-Jews. Samaritans in Chapter 8 and Gentiles in chapter 10. God acted unusually in these incidences to have Peter as the primary leader of the Church to personally accept these non-Jews by faith. Peter had to lay hands on the Samaritans as a sign of acceptance and he was unwilling to baptize the Gentiles in chapter 10. This is why the Spirit fell and why Peter said, "Who was I to think that I could oppose God?" (Acts 11:18) I wouldn't recommend developing doctrines on such unique situations.

I thought you said you know the Greek??.
Peter could NOT have said baptism saves, In 1 Pet 3: 21. Because he knew it doesn't.
He should know, He was baptised but he wasn't saved.

I wasn't talking about John's baptism The disciples of Jesus had their own baptism. Jn 3: 22--26.

As for Acts 22: 16, Ananias was talking symbolically of salvation, He knew Paul was saved, He call hin "Brother Saul", Acts 9: 17.
Paul was saved in Acts 9: 6, And every Greek Bible scholar agree that it was Paul's conversion, Anyone with one eye and half a brain will know Paul was saved, Because three days later he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, One cannot be baptised in the Holy Ghost unless they are saved.
Then, After he was saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost, He was baptised.

God did not act unusally in Acts 8 and Acts 10, God will never go against His word or His MO, Which is.
[1]Hear the gospel.
[2]Understands and believe it. Just like the gentiles did in Acts 10.
[3]Repent and get born again.
Then one can be baptised, Both in the Holy Ghost and in water.

So, It looks like it's back to the Bible and the Greek for you, This time you might learn the truth.

 

[Mungo]

God did not act unusally in Acts 8 and Acts 10, God will never go against His word or His MO, Which is.
[1]Hear the gospel.
[2]Understands and believe it. Just like the gentiles did in Acts 10.
[3]Repent and get born again.
Then one can be baptised, Both in the Holy Ghost and in water.

Jesus himself gave us the correct sequence:

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved”

Thus Jesus sets out the basic methodology our initial justification:
preach the gospel; believe the gospel; be baptised and then we will be saved.

I expect you are going to tell me now that all the translators got that wrong and that you alone have the correct translation!

[SIZE=medium]1 Pet 3:21[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ([/SIZE]KJV)

[SIZE=medium]Baptism[/SIZE], which corresponds to this now saves you (RSV)

[SIZE=medium]baptism[/SIZE], which this prefigured, now saves you (NRSV)

[SIZE=medium]This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.([/SIZE]NAB)

[SIZE=medium]And this water symbolises baptism that now saves you (NIV)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism ([/SIZE]YLT)

[SIZE=medium]Baptism[/SIZE], which corresponds to this, now saves you (HCSB)

[SIZE=medium]which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism ([/SIZE]ASV)

[SIZE=medium]Baptism[/SIZE], which is like that water, now saves you (GWT)

[SIZE=medium]There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism ([/SIZE]NKJV)

That was a type of the baptism that now saves you (CCB)

Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also (ISVNT)

You just need to believe Jesus, and what God's word says.

 

[Alanforchrist]

Jesus himself gave us the correct sequence:

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved”

Thus Jesus sets out the basic methodology our initial justification:
preach the gospel; believe the gospel; be baptised and then we will be saved.

I expect you are going to tell me now that all the translators got that wrong and that you alone have the correct translation!

[SIZE=medium]1 Pet 3:21[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ([/SIZE]KJV)

[SIZE=medium]Baptism[/SIZE], which corresponds to this now saves you (RSV)

[SIZE=medium]baptism[/SIZE], which this prefigured, now saves you (NRSV)

[SIZE=medium]This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.([/SIZE]NAB)

[SIZE=medium]And this water symbolises baptism that now saves you (NIV)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism ([/SIZE]YLT)

[SIZE=medium]Baptism[/SIZE], which corresponds to this, now saves you (HCSB)

[SIZE=medium]which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism ([/SIZE]ASV)

[SIZE=medium]Baptism[/SIZE], which is like that water, now saves you (GWT)

[SIZE=medium]There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism ([/SIZE]NKJV)

That was a type of the baptism that now saves you (CCB)

Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also (ISVNT)

You just need to believe Jesus, and what God's word says.

There you go AGAIN, Not reading what I put.
[1]The Greek emphesis for,"Saved", In Mk 16: 16, Is on the believing, NOT baptism.
[2]Peter couldn't have said baptism saves, In 1 Pet 3: 31. Because he knew it didn't.

I have told you, In order to understand what God really says, You need to know who is doing the talking, You need to know when it is the translaters. And the translaters have mi-lead us in all those version of the Bible that you gave.
The Greek says baptism is,

,
"The expression, Not the medium, The symbol, Not the cause".
[End quote].

You catholics accept the Bible on face value when it suits you, But when it proves you wrong You reject it, Surely that should tell you somthing about the catholics.
For instance, You take Acts 2: 38, And 1 Pet 3: 21, at face value, Because it suits you,
But when it comes to Eph 2: 8--9, Titus 3: 5 and Ron 4: 2--5. You don't accept it, You say God is a lying deceiver.
And that is bacuse you believe you are saved by faith AND WORKS.
Can't you see how wrong the catholics are??.

 

[Selene]

There you go AGAIN, Not reading what I put.
[1]The Greek emphesis for,"Saved", In Mk 16: 16, Is on the believing, NOT baptism.
[2]Peter couldn't have said baptism saves, In 1 Pet 3: 31. Because he knew it didn't.

I have told you, In order to understand what God really says, You need to know who is doing the talking, You need to know when it is the translaters. And the translaters have mi-lead us in all those version of the Bible that you gave.
The Greek says baptism is,

,
"The expression, Not the medium, The symbol, Not the cause".
[End quote].

You catholics accept the Bible on face value when it suits you, But when it proves you wrong You reject it, Surely that should tell you somthing about the catholics.
For instance, You take Acts 2: 38, And 1 Pet 3: 21, at face value, Because it suits you,
But when it comes to Eph 2: 8--9, Titus 3: 5 and Ron 4: 2--5. You don't accept it, You say God is a lying deceiver.
And that is bacuse you believe you are saved by faith AND WORKS.
Can't you see how wrong the catholics are??.

Jesus Christ is the Way to salvation. Therefore, as Christians we should follow Jesus Christ because salvation and eternal life comes from Him. Did not Jesus Christ get Himself baptized?? Since He had Himself baptized, then baptism is important to your salvation just as Christ said.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[Wormwood]

I thought you said you know the Greek??.
Peter could NOT have said baptism saves, In 1 Pet 3: 21. Because he knew it doesn't.
He should know, He was baptised but he wasn't saved.

So I can only know Greek if I agree with your theology? Hmmmm. Since, you don't seem to know Greek, that doesnt make much sense to me. Not sure it works that way Alan. Actually, Peter says "baptism now saves you." Ill just stick with the text and not try to psychoanalyze Peter.

I wasn't talking about John's baptism The disciples of Jesus had their own baptism. Jn 3: 22--26.

A number of problems with this suggestion. First, this wasn't the same thing as Jesus had not died for people's sins nor been raised from the dead. So this baptism was not a baptism into the death of Jesus nor was it a promise of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost had not happened yet. Moreover, even Christian baptism does not guarantee salvation. Personally, I believe a person can shipwreck their faith and those who were "washed" can go back to wallowing in the mud. So Peter was indeed "chosen" by Jesus prior to Pentecost. Saying that Peter wasn't "saved" until Pentecost is a bit narrow.

As for Acts 22: 16, Ananias was talking symbolically of salvation, He knew Paul was saved, He call hin "Brother Saul", Acts 9: 17.
Paul was saved in Acts 9: 6, And every Greek Bible scholar agree that it was Paul's conversion, Anyone with one eye and half a brain will know Paul was saved, Because three days later he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, One cannot be baptised in the Holy Ghost unless they are saved.
Then, After he was saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost, He was baptised.

Jews called each other "brothers" all the time...especially in Acts. (cf. Acts 7:2; 14:2; 22:1; 23:1, etc.)

So every Greek scholar agrees that Paul's conversion happened prior to his baptism??

[SIZE=medium]Paul’s account of his baptism contains words not mentioned in the earlier account. His reference to the Lord as “the God of our fathers” and his allusion to Jesus as “the Righteous One” are not found in 9:1–22, but contribute a strongly Jewish flavor to the words of Ananias. Also important are the words “wash your sins away, calling on his name.” These words communicate a strong sense of personal sin and the need for cleansing from the Lord.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Paul’s words also point out his clear sense of the connection between baptism and the forgiveness of sins. As has already been shown in Acts (see 2:38), the apostles found nothing contradictory about preaching salvation by faith and at the same time the necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sins. They did not advocate a “baptismal regeneration” which eliminated faith from the moment of forgiveness, but neither did they shrink from making baptism a part of the expression of this faith. Thus the New Testament as a whole maintains a consistent role for baptism in the forgiveness of sins and the uniting with Christ at conversion (see Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:4).[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Dennis Gaertner, Acts, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), Ac 22:12–16.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]As Ananias spoke one sentence, flaky scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he received believer’s baptism in the manner of all who have come to the Lord in Acts. Thereby he identified with all the Christians in Jerusalem, Samaria, Damascus, Ethiopia, and wherever else the gospel had gone. Only after his baptism did he break his fast and get back his strength. Somewhere in these few minutes (or perhaps even seconds), God filled Saul of Tarsus with the Holy Spirit, now a normative experience at the time of regeneration. The variance in Acts 8 and again in 19:1–7 represent exceptions to the biblical pattern.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Kenneth O. Gangel, vol. 5, Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 142.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Ver. 16.—His Name for the Name of the Lord, A.V. and T.R. Wash away thy sins; ἀπόλουσαι, only here and in 1 Cor. 6:11, where it is found in exactly the same sense of “washing away sins” (see vers. 9, 10) in holy baptism. Hence the λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας, “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5; comp. Eph. 5:26; and see ch. 2:38, note)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Acts of the Apostles Vol. II, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 195.[/SIZE]

Many scholars see this confession and baptism as Paul's conversion as shown above.

God did not act unusally in Acts 8 and Acts 10, God will never go against His word or His MO, Which is.
[1]Hear the gospel.
[2]Understands and believe it. Just like the gentiles did in Acts 10.
[3]Repent and get born again.
Then one can be baptised, Both in the Holy Ghost and in water.

Actually, in Acts 8 we see...

“But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12, NIV84)

And then...

“When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 8:14–16, NIV84)

So in Acts 8 they 1) Hear the Gospel, 2) understand and believe it, 3) are baptized but do not receive the Holy Spirit. Rather, Peter has to come and lay hands on them in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit. So, by this MO, we all need Peter to lay hands on us if we want the Holy Spirit.

So, It looks like it's back to the Bible and the Greek for you, This time you might learn the truth.

We can have this discussion without the nasty remarks. Not very becoming of a Christian.

 

[Mungo]

I have told you, In order to understand what God really says, You need to know who is doing the talking, You need to know when it is the translaters. And the translaters have mi-lead us in all those version of the Bible that you gave.

All the translators mislead us! But your personal translation is correct. Well what does that say about your ego?

You catholics accept the Bible on face value when it suits you, But when it proves you wrong You reject it, Surely that should tell you somthing about the catholics.
For instance, You take Acts 2: 38, And 1 Pet 3: 21, at face value, Because it suits you,
But when it comes to Eph 2: 8--9, Titus 3: 5 and Ron 4: 2--5. You don't accept it, You say God is a lying deceiver.
And that is bacuse you believe you are saved by faith AND WORKS.
Can't you see how wrong the catholics are??.

Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- not because of works, lest any man should boast. "
Yes, Catholics believe that.

Titus 3:5 "he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"
Yes, Catholics believe that.

Rom 4:2-5 "Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. "
Yes, Catholics believe that.

Acts 2:38 "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."
Yes, Catholics believe that.

1Pet 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, 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"
Yes, Catholics believe that.

Seems to me that Catholics believe what scripture says.

Do you? Or do you only believe your own personal translation of the Bible?

 

[Alanforchrist]

Jesus Christ is the Way to salvation. Therefore, as Christians we should follow Jesus Christ because salvation and eternal life comes from Him. Did not Jesus Christ get Himself baptized?? Since He had Himself baptized, then baptism is important to your salvation just as Christ said.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Jesus di set the example, He was the Son of God, So the example is, First become a child of God, The and then only can you be baptised.

So I can only know Greek if I agree with your theology? Hmmmm. Since, you don't seem to know Greek, that doesnt make much sense to me. Not sure it works that way Alan. Actually, Peter says "baptism now saves you." Ill just stick with the text and not try to psychoanalyze Peter.


A number of problems with this suggestion. First, this wasn't the same thing as Jesus had not died for people's sins nor been raised from the dead. So this baptism was not a baptism into the death of Jesus nor was it a promise of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost had not happened yet. Moreover, even Christian baptism does not guarantee salvation. Personally, I believe a person can shipwreck their faith and those who were "washed" can go back to wallowing in the mud. So Peter was indeed "chosen" by Jesus prior to Pentecost. Saying that Peter wasn't "saved" until Pentecost is a bit narrow.

Jews called each other "brothers" all the time...especially in Acts. (cf. Acts 7:2; 14:2; 22:1; 23:1, etc.)

So every Greek scholar agrees that Paul's conversion happened prior to his baptism??



Many scholars see this confession and baptism as Paul's conversion as shown above.


Actually, in Acts 8 we see...

“But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12, NIV84)

And then...

“When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 8:14–16, NIV84)

So in Acts 8 they 1) Hear the Gospel, 2) understand and believe it, 3) are baptized but do not receive the Holy Spirit. Rather, Peter has to come and lay hands on them in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit. So, by this MO, we all need Peter to lay hands on us if we want the Holy Spirit.

We can have this discussion without the nasty remarks. Not very becoming of a Christian.

I see you are giving mans opinions, Including your own, I will stay with the Bible and the Greek Bible text

All the translators mislead us! But your personal translation is correct. Well what does that say about your ego?



Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- not because of works, lest any man should boast. "
Yes, Catholics believe that.

Titus 3:5 "he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"
Yes, Catholics believe that.

Rom 4:2-5 "Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. "
Yes, Catholics believe that.

Acts 2:38 "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."
Yes, Catholics believe that.

1Pet 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, 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"
Yes, Catholics believe that.

Seems to me that Catholics believe what scripture says.

Do you? Or do you only believe your own personal translation of the Bible?

catholics Don't believe Eph 2: 8--9, Titus 3: 3, Or Rom 4: 2--5, Stop telling lies, They believe they are saved by faith AND WORKS, Why tell lies??.

I believe the scriptures and the Greek meanings to them, Unlike the catholics.

 

[Mungo]

catholics Don't believe Eph 2: 8--9, Titus 3: 3, Or Rom 4: 2--5, Stop telling lies, They believe they are saved by faith AND WORKS, Why tell lies??.

So now you are an expert on what Catholics believe as well as a Greek expert able to correct all the expert translators.

Catholics believe every word of the Bible.

I believe the scriptures and the Greek meanings to them, Unlike the catholics.

You seem to believe your personal translation of the Bible.

Catholics believe the Bible.

 

[Wormwood]

I see you are giving mans opinions, Including your own, I will stay with the Bible and the Greek Bible text

I'll take it by that response that you concede the points and have no further support for your arguments.

 

[Selene]

Jesus di set the example, He was the Son of God, So the example is, First become a child of God, The and then only can you be baptised.

First become a child of God and then be baptized?? How does one become a child of God?? Is it not by following Christ?? So, if Christ had Himself baptized and one decides to do the same, then his/her obedience in following in Christ's footsteps already makes him/her a child of God. A person can always say he/she is a child of God, but choose NOT to be baptize because he/she feels that baptism is not necessary.

 

[Alanforchrist]

So now you are an expert on what Catholics believe as well as a Greek expert able to correct all the expert translators.

Catholics believe every word of the Bible.


You seem to believe your personal translation of the Bible.

Catholics believe the Bible.

I know what the Bible teaches, And I know what the catholics teach, And I know they are not the same, As you have proved.
And catholics don't believe tha Bible, They twist it.

I'll take it by that response that you concede the points and have no further support for your arguments.

Don't be silly.

First become a child of God and then be baptized?? How does one become a child of God?? Is it not by following Christ?? So, if Christ had Himself baptized and one decides to do the same, then his/her obedience in following in Christ's footsteps already makes him/her a child of God. A person can always say he/she is a child of God, but choose NOT to be baptize because he/she feels that baptism is not necessary.

Water baptism isn't needed for salvation, I was saved, [Born again] In Dec 1975, Baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, May 11, 1976, So I was saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost, But I wasn't baptised in water..So how can water baptism save, You have come to late to tell me water baptism saves, Because I know from experience, The Bible and the Greek, That it doesn't.
BTW, I was baptised in water July 3 1976, Seven months after I was saved.