Baptism: Its Meaning and Significance
- Thread starter Wormwood
- Start date
-
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!
And they are two different teaching.Mungo said:
I'm glad that you distinguish what the Bible teaches to what the catholic believe.
I wouldn't worry Mungo, this is coming from a person who argues that 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't actually say, "baptism now saves you." It's better to know where your views are not expressly stated in Scripture than to believe all your views are straight from Scripture and be dead wrong! Ha! :lol:
Read my posts on 1 Pet 3: 21, Then you might learn the truth.Wormwood said:
Peter knew baptism doesn't save, And he doesn't contradict himself.
Selene
New Member
According to Jesus, water baptism does save.Alanforchrist said:
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Furthermore, after John the baptist died, Jesus continued to allow His disciples to baptize. And after Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, the Apostles continued to baptize with water. Therefore, baptism is necessary. The baptism that Christ was baptized with is the same baptism that Christians are baptized in.....a baptism of both water and spirit (which is considered as ONE baptism, not separate).
The Original Greek emphesis for, "Saved" In Mk 16: 16, Is on the "Believing", Not baptism, And the Bible proves it, As Jesus goes on to say,Selene said:
"He that believeth not shall be damned", He didn't say, He that isn't baptised shall be damned..DID HE??.. NO..NO.
To understand the Bible, You need to know when it is God tal;king, When it is a Biblical character talking and when it is the translaters misleading us, For instance, Acts 2: 38, The translaters have mislead un to believing we have to be baptised for the remission of sins.
But again, The Greek emphesis for "Remission of sins", Is on the repenting, Not baptism.
If you was to read the original saying, It would be something like,
"Repent for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost", Then and then only;[Once you are saved] You can be baptised.
Peter should know baptism doesn't save, As he was baptised but he wasn't saved until after Jesus rose from the dead.
So Peter knew baptism doesn't save, Both by experience and by revelation.
Spiritual baptism and water baptism, are not one experience, That is a catholic lie.
Plus, catholics get baptised as an infant, But don't receive the Spirit until their confirmation.
Alan,
Since you know Greek so well, lets walk through the text. Shall we?
“ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται.” (Mark 16:16, NA27)
This says "the believing (present participle) and the being baptized (passive participle) will save/deliver.
So how do you get that the emphasis is not on baptism here? The two participles are combined with a conjunction that equates the two. This is no different than if I said, "Eating and drinking will fill them." Eating is not getting emphasis and neither is drinking. Rather, both in combination are what produce the result. Moreover, its a silly argument to suggest that the sentence should conclude that those who do not believe and are baptized are condemned. It is assumed that baptism is a result of faith. Why would someone get baptized if they didn't believe? This is especially true in the first century when it was very dangerous to be a Christian. People did not get baptized just because it was the cool thing to do. Baptism implied faith. If the author did not want to include baptism, then he wouldn't have included it. Period.
You are also way off on Acts 2:38. Even commentators that disagree with baptism as necessary don't make that argument. Rather they try to argue that on rare occasions, eis can mean "on account of" and not "for the purpose of." However, this is not a natural reading. In any event, the Greek does not deemphasize baptism. Please show me linguistically how the Greek indicates that baptism does not receive any emphasis in this text. Don't just say "the Greek says so." This only betrays the fact that you don't really know Greek. If you do, show some grammatical rules that support your claims and stop wasting everyones time with baseless claims.
Since you know Greek so well, lets walk through the text. Shall we?
“ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται.” (Mark 16:16, NA27)
This says "the believing (present participle) and the being baptized (passive participle) will save/deliver.
So how do you get that the emphasis is not on baptism here? The two participles are combined with a conjunction that equates the two. This is no different than if I said, "Eating and drinking will fill them." Eating is not getting emphasis and neither is drinking. Rather, both in combination are what produce the result. Moreover, its a silly argument to suggest that the sentence should conclude that those who do not believe and are baptized are condemned. It is assumed that baptism is a result of faith. Why would someone get baptized if they didn't believe? This is especially true in the first century when it was very dangerous to be a Christian. People did not get baptized just because it was the cool thing to do. Baptism implied faith. If the author did not want to include baptism, then he wouldn't have included it. Period.
You are also way off on Acts 2:38. Even commentators that disagree with baptism as necessary don't make that argument. Rather they try to argue that on rare occasions, eis can mean "on account of" and not "for the purpose of." However, this is not a natural reading. In any event, the Greek does not deemphasize baptism. Please show me linguistically how the Greek indicates that baptism does not receive any emphasis in this text. Don't just say "the Greek says so." This only betrays the fact that you don't really know Greek. If you do, show some grammatical rules that support your claims and stop wasting everyones time with baseless claims.
Wormwood said:
I don't know what Greek you are using, But it isn't the Biblical Greek And it doesn't agree with the Bible.Wormwood said:
[1]The disciples were baptised, But they weren't saved until Jesus rose from the dead,
[2]Paul was saved three days before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, And that was before he was baptised in water.
[3]The Gentiles in Acts 10, Were saved, Baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they were baptised in water.
You need to get your fact,[And Greek] right.
ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται (as given by Wormwood)Alanforchrist said:
ο πιστευσας και βαπτισθεις σωθησεται ο δε απιστησας κατακριθησεται (Stephanos – 1550)
ο πιστευσας και βαπτισθεις σωθησεται ο δε απιστησας κατακριθησεται (Westcott-Hort – 1881)
ο πιστευσας και βαπτισθεις σωθησεται ο δε απιστησας κατακριθησεται (Scrivener – 1894)
ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται (SBL)
Spot the difference? Here is a clue - there isn't any.
Baptism for salvation was not instituted until Jesus had risen from the dead so your point is.....well, pointless!Alanforchrist said:
You claim they were saved but you provide no evidence for that.Alanforchrist said:
Alan,
You make me laugh. You keep repeating the same old tired arguments without a shred of defense. You obviously don't know Greek. You should stop pretending 1) that you know Greek and 2) that the Greek is radically different than what translators have presented. If you have a different Greek rendering, please share it (although we both know you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Koine Greek and Russian). The UBS4 and NA28 (I have NA27) are identical and these are the two most up to date and prominent Greek New Testaments on the market. There isn't even a textual variant for verse 16.
You make me laugh. You keep repeating the same old tired arguments without a shred of defense. You obviously don't know Greek. You should stop pretending 1) that you know Greek and 2) that the Greek is radically different than what translators have presented. If you have a different Greek rendering, please share it (although we both know you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Koine Greek and Russian). The UBS4 and NA28 (I have NA27) are identical and these are the two most up to date and prominent Greek New Testaments on the market. There isn't even a textual variant for verse 16.
[1]I notice you give man's interprations and opinions about the Greek.Mungo said:
[2]The very fact that you say baptism wasn't instituted until after Jesus had risen from the dead, Proves the fact that water baptism doesn't save, Unkless you are sayiong that Peter and the other disciples of Jesus wasn't saved, And if Peter wasn't saved, That blows you belief about the pope.
You have shot yourself in the foot by your own confession.
[3]Acts 9: 6-17. And Acts 10: 44-46, is the proof that Paul was saved three days before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, But he wasn't baptised. And the Gentiles weren't baptised, But they were saved and filled with the Spirit.
I had given you proof, STOP TELLING LIES.
If you read my posts instead of looking at them, You will see that I have given scripture evidence to back up the original TRUE Greek, STOP TELLING LIES.Wormwood said:
The trouble with your "Up to date" Greek, Is they are man's translations and opinions.
I will stay with the orignal Greek Bible texts, Which the scriptures agree with.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And so you can sit and argue over the finer details, but in the end Jesus will save all that call upon Him , baptised or not, and if one had the courage to ask Him, He would tell you that there are many baptised christians out there who would not make it if not for His grace. God will save whom He will save, and He cares little for you opinion neither does He ask nor seeks mens guidance on such matters. foolish as we are.
1Co_3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
In all His Love
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And so you can sit and argue over the finer details, but in the end Jesus will save all that call upon Him , baptised or not, and if one had the courage to ask Him, He would tell you that there are many baptised christians out there who would not make it if not for His grace. God will save whom He will save, and He cares little for you opinion neither does He ask nor seeks mens guidance on such matters. foolish as we are.
1Co_3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
In all His Love
[1]You might have not said Peter wasn't saved, But you believe it, You have to because there is no record of him being baptised after Jesus rose from the dead, His baptism was before Jesus died.Mungo said:
So you proved baptism doesn't save.
[2] When you said they weren't saved in Acts 9: 6--17 and Acts 10: 44-46, I take it you are joking, Right??.
One cannot receive the baptism in the Holy Ghost without being saved first.
[3]If I haven't given you proof, What do you think those scriptures mean??.
What you mean is, You don't want to accpet the proof.
Please note,
Jesus didn't say, be baptised then believe, Or Baptise people Then make disciples of them, And Peter never said be baptised then repent, But thats the way catholics and other false religions teach it.
Jesus said, Believe first, And mkae disciples first, Then baptise them. And Peter said repent first, Then they can be baptised.
You should be glad baptism doesn't save, Because your not baptised.
Neither I nor you have proved any such thing. The scriptures clearly say that baptism saves.Alanforchrist said:
As to Peter, he was already was a disciple of Jesus. He was already saved before Jesus died and rose again.
Jesus said to the apostles at the last Supper “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Lk 22:28-30).
Do think he would confer a kingdom on people who were not saved?
Would unsaved people be sitting at his table?
Will unsaved people be sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel?
[2]Alanforchrist said:
What I said was “None of those texts mention anything about being saved. If you are claiming that they were saved then you need to explain why you think that not just give your opinion.” You give nothing to justify using those scriptures as proof of anything.
[3]
1. Paul didn’t receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 9:6-17.
2. The incident with Cornelius is a special case and not a good example to generalise from. Consider the following.
1. Peter was sent to Cornelius as a demonstration to Peter and the Church that they must include the Gentiles in their mission. As James says after Peter recalled the incident in Acts 15 - “Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14). This incident therefore was God’s initiative to begin bringing the gentiles into the Church.
2. This was the second part of God’s fulfilling the prophecy of Joel that Peter quoted at Pentecost.
“‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh’”.
For the Jews mankind was divided into two – Jews and Gentiles. At Pentecost God poured out his Spirit on the Jews. Now with Cornelius God is pouring out his Spirit on the Gentiles.
3. The third point to note is that Cornelius is not just any old Gentile. He is a “God-fearer”, a Gentile who was almost converted to Judaism who often attended the synagogue (see Acts 13:16) and kept the Jewish prayer times – as Cornelius was when the Angel visited him.
“Now in Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Cohort called the Italica, devout and God-fearing along with his whole household, who used to give alms generously to the Jewish people and pray to God constantly. One afternoon about three o’clock, he saw plainly in a vision an angel of God come in to him” (Acts 10:1-3).
Cornelius was also a righteous man, acceptable to God. The angel said to Cornelius:
““Your prayers and almsgiving have ascended as a memorial offering before God. (Acts 10:3)
“Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your almsgiving remembered before God.” (Acts 10:31)
The whole incident is therefore unique.
Moreover your point is not even supported by this incident.
It says in Acts 11:14 that Peter “will speak words to you [Cornelius] by which you and all your household will be saved”. Those words includes Peter’s command (not suggestion) that they be baptised (Acts 10:48). Peter was still instructing them on what they must do when the Holy Spirit was poured out on them and interrupted Peter’s instructions.
The instructions for baptism are part of Peter’s instructions as to how Cornelius and his household will be saved.
Instead of telling me what Jesus didn’t say, why don’t you focus on what Jesus did sayAlanforchrist said:
He who believes and is baptized will be saved
It’s very simple.
Instead of telling me what Peter didn’t say, why don’t you focus on what Peter did say
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you
It’s very simple.
P.S. I'm going away for the weekend. I may not have time for any more replies before I come back.
So by this rational, we don't need to repent, be baptized, or confess Christ. MJ, the context of Romans already deals heavily with baptism in chapter 6. Furthermore, the focus of chapter 10 is not a plan of salvation, but is a discussion about whether or not Gentiles can be saved by faith. Thus, the emphasis is on "whosoever." Paul is proving that anyone who puts faith in Jesus can be saved and is not giving a plan of how those people should respond. He assumes all were baptized in chapter 6 and Acts 22:16 makes it clear that part of "calling" on the Lord included baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 also makes this point that baptism is an "appeal" to God for a clean conscience. There is no such thing as a "sinners prayer" in the book of Acts. This is not about causing division or strife, but examining what God desires of those who come to Christ in faith.mjrhealth said:
Also, no one is saying that a baptized person can make it apart from grace. The issue is regarding how one responds to and embraces God's grace biblically. Also, I am not a Calvinist, so "God will save whom he will save" adds nothing to this conversation other than the idea that it doesn't matter what we do or what we don't do...God's going to make whatever happen happen. I am not a fatalist and I do not believe this sort of doctrine.
What has teh bible got to do with embracing God.
Mat_18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mar_10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
christians are far to grown up for God.
In all His Love
Huh? Um, you know, the Gospel, message of Jesus, words of life and so forth? Look, if you want to discuss a view on this topic, please do. If your intent is just to make judgments about my spiritual maturity or infer that I'm carnal and divisive, please don't. Putting "in all his love" at the end of your statements do not make them loving.mjrhealth said:
Similar threads
