MTMattie
Well-known member
Unless you happen to be a thief on the cross.
He that believes and is not water baptised is saved
- Thread starter 360watt
- Start date
mailmandan
Well-known member
Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. Believes plus what? Simply believes.
We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel. Romans 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”
2 Corinthians 4:3 - But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Seabass
Active member
Hello,
The "thief on the cross" is an old argument that has never held water, I am surprised people still use it today.
Here are the reason why I and you should reject the theif argument against the necessity of water baptism:
1)
those who make the thief argument usually say the thief was saved by belief only, he was not baptized. The problem here is there is no verse that unequivocally states the thief was not baptized. There is no verse that unequivocally states the thief was baptized. Hence the whole 'thief argument' is based on an assumption that the was not baptized, an assumption that cannot ever be proven.
2)
The thief is not an example of NT salvation.
Heb 9:16-17:
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
I have a will but it does not come into effect until AFTER I die for there is no strength in it while I am alive. Likewise Christ is the Testator of the NT therefore it is a necessity that Christ must first die for the NT to be in force. At the time Christ promise the thief he would be in paradise, Christ was still alive meaning the NT was not yet force meaning Acts 2:38 was not yet in force therefore not binding upon the thief.
To find examples of NT salvation one must look after Christ death in the NT. We have the first recorded gospel sermon in Acts 2 which took place after Christ died hence was in effect that requires repentance and remission of sins.
Furthermore the NT requires one to "believe in thine heart that God hath raised (past tense) him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rom 10:9). Again, at the time Christ was speaking to the thief, Christ was very much alive, He had not yet died much less been raised from the dead. Hence Rom 10:9 cannot apply to the thief. Also the NT requires one to be "baptized into His death" (Rom 6:3ff) before one can walk in newness of life. Again, another impossiblity for the thief......for he was not under the NT gospel....he will be judge by the OT law which he lived under on judgement day.
3)
Matt 9:6
.....when Christ as ON EARTH during His personal earthly ministry he had been given power/authority to forgive sins of those whom He tho't was deserving as this thief. For anyone TODAY to make the claim they are saved just like the thief then must;
---invent a time machine and go back about 2000 years,
---back before the NT came into effect to when Christ was ON EARTH during His personal earthly ministry
---must have a run-in meeting with Christ where Christ personally forgives their sins.
Of course none of this is possible making it impossible for anyone today to be saved just like the thief.
Seabass
Active member
how many time have we been through this???
A one verse theology will fail EVERY SINGLE TIME because there are dozens times dozens of NT verses that deal with salvation and all of them must be examined to determine how one can be saved. One cannot cherry pick one verse that mentions "believe" then wrongly claim belief only saves having not examined all other verses. The Bible show many things "save"...faith saves, repentance saves, confession saves, baptism saves. grace saves, blood of Christ saves, hope saves etc etc, so how can one ever reach the conclusion belief only saves?
Seabass
Active member
why are you so blue?
mailmandan
Well-known member
Amen! In Matthew 27:39-44, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized afterwards.
Now a common argument used by water-salvationists in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate. (Others may argue how do we know he was not already water baptized). I've heard it all.
So let's see, after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." and before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
So, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or was it or FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It would have to be the latter in order to agree with the Old Testament mandate argument from water-salvationists. In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. If translated "in order to obtain" the verse does not make sense. I baptize you with water FOR (in order to obtain) repentance? or I baptize you with water FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) repentance? Obviously, the latter.
Whatever baptism is "for" in Acts 2:38, it's "for" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. Water baptism is "in regard to" remission of sins received upon repentance. So the water baptism is not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament mandate but is necessary for salvation under the New Testament mandate argument doesn't hold water.
Before AND after Pentecost, salvation is through belief/faith "apart from water baptism" (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:2-6; 5:1; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
MTMattie
Well-known member
MTMattie
Well-known member
I either escaped from the Blue Man Group or sub-zero temps.
brightfame52
Well-known member
Man by nature is disobedient, we are under the control of s demonic powerful spirit Eph 2:2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Titus 3:3-6
3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Thats why Jesus had to save us by regeneration. Man cannot obey God, the Gospel while living in our old nature of disobedience, if you could, no need for Christ to save us.
High lighted words are mine for discussion. Most likely I'll need more than one post to answer you, so as to keep this from this being too long for our readers consideration.
1.) Sinners are not freed from sin and condemnation by the deeds of the law ~ which includes any work man has an active part in, to preach that they are, is to teach/preach another gospel, which falls under the curse of God.
Romans 3:20
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”(2.) Those who obey, have first been quickened to life, created after the image of Jesus Christ, so that they can hear, see and understand and be obedience.
Romans 8:7,8
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”
One must be in the Spirit, or born again, before they can obey, otherwise, it is impossible for those still in the flesh to do so.
Most of what you are saying, no one is trying to do, or is saying, other than water baptism is not the means of having one's sins legally forgiven, only the faith and obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ is the only means of being justified in God's sight.
I agree with this, without implicating that water baptism is the legal means of having one sins forgiven. All who have faith in the gospel of Christ, will have a desire to be baptized into the faith/religion of Jesus Christ, committing their life to follow its teachings and to follow the steps of the Saviour.
You are not understanding Romans 10:1-4, not even close.
Who is Israel in verse one? Natural Israel, or elect Israel, who have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel that Paul preached?
It not hard to see, if we considered what Paul said of the Israel he was speaking about~he was not speaking of all Israel after the flesh without exception, but a certain part of Israel that had a true zeal of God, but that zeal was without true knowledge, and that was the salvation he was praying to God for them~he was not laboring to add to the number of the elect, he desired for the elect Israel to come to knowledge of the truth to go along with their godly zeal they had! The Israel Paul prayed for were already born of God, proven by their great zeal of God, yet they had not submitted themselves to totally trust in Christ's righteousness.
The word saved in Romans 10:9,13 is to be understood in a practical sense~not legally.
I'll finish later.
Thank you SeaBass, for quoting scriptures that truly you have no understanding of their true meaning; the scriptures you used actually will support what we know to be the truth, so please consider carefully.
Acts 10:35
“But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”Consider Peter’s Confession (10:30-35) concerning Cornelius
Cornelius related to Peter exactly what had happened several days earlier when the angel appeared. The angel promised Cornelius that Peter would speak to him, like Philip to the eunuch (Ac 8:26-40). Note that Cornelius had a large crowd together, and they wanted to hear the word of God (10:24,33). What kind of man is so intent, eager, and ready to hear God’s commandments? A lost child of hell? Not hardly!"Before" Cornelius was baptized he was full of faith – he just did not know the right object for it yet, Jesus of Nazareth! If Jesus had been there, He would have said, “I have not seen so great faith in all of Israel!”
Peter, being an apostle, had the gift of discerning spirits; and he could speak authoritatively about Cornelius, just like he had earlier discerned and condemned Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:14-25). God gave Peter the ability and certain knowledge to know Cornelius’s spiritual condition.
Peter first confesses that Cornelius’s racial status as a Gentile did not mean a thing to God. He then confessed that Cornelius truly feared God and worked righteousness in the present tense. He concluded by stating that such actions were evidence of his previous acceptance with God.
A perfect tense, passive voice verb construction of “is accepted” proves the point grammatically. If the verb is made present or future, then working righteousness becomes a condition for life, which no one but a Campbellite or Catholic will admit while sober!
Fearing God and doing righteousness, including repentance and faith, are evidences of eternal life.
The rejection of this Holy Spirit inspired declaration of Cornelius’s spiritual condition is profane, and showing unbelief, more than believing, regardless what one may say otherwise.
It is a horrible disgrace and theological shame that men make these conditions of eternal life. It is a horrible disgrace and theological shame that men make these of a sinner in the flesh.
If Cornelius was not already legally justified here, then God accepted him under condemnation! If Cornelius was not already born again here, then God accepted the will and works of the flesh!
Except and until a man is born again, he cannot even see God’s kingdom, said Jesus (John 3:3). Except and until a man is born again, he cannot even hear preaching, said Jesus (John 8:43,47).
A man that believes [present tense] Jesus is the Son of God is born [perfect tense, passive voice] of God already (Ist John 5:1). This is clearly indicated by English verb tenses.
Which is first in time, the perfect tense or the present tense, regardless of sentence order? Can you understand this: “Whosoever breathes like normal is resuscitated”? Which is first? How about this: “Whosoever enters the room is approved of headquarters”? Which is first?
But Ist John 5:1 can also be confirmed as teaching faith as evidence by comparing Ist John 2:29 and 4:7, where adopting any other conclusion makes righteousness and love to be conditions.
By reading further, we can realize that evidence is the intent, for it is clearly stated for both righteousness and brotherly love and faith (Ist John 3:7,10,14; 5:13; III John 1:11).
By reading John’s epistle further, we find more proof of priority for regeneration (Ist Jn 4:15). And I John 5:1 can also be confirmed as teaching faith as evidence by reading Ist John 5:4. And st John 5:1 can also be confirmed as teaching faith as evidence by reading I John 5:13.
And this agrees with what John wrote about the order in his gospel (John 1:13; 3:3; and 8:47).
Those who make John’s books about believing to be a condition for life are ignorant or liars.
Coming back tomorrow to finish.
Let us consider Colossians 2.
These scriptures are not as easy to understand as one may first think by reading them. They must be consider as a whole to get the true meaning of what Paul is saying, and for sure he is not saying that water baptism is where our sins are forgiven, that would leave us incomplete in Christ, yet Paul said clearly we are complete in him.
He also said in whom ye also are circumcised with a circumcision made without hand. Paul wen ton to say we were buried with him in baptism, wherein also we were risen with him through the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead!
Based on these truth, I will submit that this baptism cannot be water baptism, but Christ's baptism that he was baptized with. Consider:
Luke 12:50
"But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!"
"Referring to the baptism of his sufferings is what is meant. There was a necessity of his being baptized with it, on his Father's account; it was his will, his decree, and the command he enjoined him as Mediator; it was the portion he allotted him, and the cup he gave unto him: and on his own part, he obliged himself unto it, in the counsel and covenant of peace; for this purpose he came into this world, and had substituted himself in the room and stead of his people; and it was necessary on their part, for their sins could not be atoned for without sufferings, nor without the sufferings of Christ; moreover, the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament concerning them, made them necessary: and how am I straitened until it be accomplished: these words express both the trouble and distress Christ was in, at the apprehension of his sufferings as man; which were like to the distress of persons, closely besieged by an enemy; or rather of a woman, whose time of travail draws nigh, when she dreads it, and yet longs to have it over: and likewise they signify, his restless desire to have them accomplished; not that he desired that Judas should betray him, or the Jews crucify him, as these were sins of theirs; nor merely his sufferings as such; but that thereby the justice of God might be satisfied, the law might be fulfilled, and the salvation of his people be obtained: and this eager desire of his, he had shown in various instances, and did show afterwards; as in his ready compliance with his Father's proposal in eternity; in his frequent appearances in human form before his incarnation; in sending one message after another, to give notice of his coming; in his willingness to be about his Father's business, as soon as possible; in rebuking Peter, when he would have dissuaded him from all thoughts of suffering: in going to Jerusalem on his own accord, in order to suffer there; in his earnest wish to eat the last passover with his disciples; in the joy that possessed him, when Judas was gone out, in order to betray him; in stopping in the midst of his sermon, lest he should overrun, or outslip the time of meeting him in the garden, John 14:30 in his going thither, and willingly surrendering himself up into the hands of his enemies; and in cheerfully laying down his life: all which arose from the entire love he had for the persons he died for; and because it was his Father's will, and his glory was concerned herein, and his own glory also was advanced thereby; moreover, his death was the life of others, and the work required haste." (John Gill)
One cannot separate the sufferings, death of Christ, his resurrection, from his body, which are all of his chosen people. We were part of his baptism......... sufferings, death, and resurrection, which is what truly makes us complete IN HIM.Ephesians 1:20-2:7~"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are savedAnd hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."
Last edited:
mailmandan
Well-known member
False. That is not according to my analogy. You are being dishonest. I never said that medication must be washed down with water or else it simply remains in the mouth, so your cunning diversion is null and void. Although it logically follows that we wash down medication with water yet if no water is available, you can still take it dry without washing it down with water, (been there, done that multiple times) so once again, it's the medication that makes you well and not the water. It's the same with baptism. It logically follows that we get water baptized after we have been saved through faith (Acts 10:43-47) but if no water is available because you are on your death bed in the hospital or on the battlefield when you receive Christ through faith, you will still be saved because you BELIEVE which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b); John 3:15,16; 18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25;26) Your biased interpretation of Mark 16:16 is not in harmony with those passages of Scripture.
Not according to what Christ said in Mark 16:16(b); and John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. Just as belief alone saves medicine alone saves. Your faulty human logic does not negate the truth about being saved by belief "apart from baptism." (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26)
You ignore the second clause which clarifies the first clause - ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. This verse is composed of two basic statements. 1 He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2 He who does not believe will be condemned. While this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they will be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary, “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse. In your zeal to promote your false gospel, you overlooked the fact that there have been numerous folks from various false religions and cults who have been baptized but do not truly believe unto salvation. Mere "mental assent" belief that falls short of trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation (John 3:18) and instead trusts in water and works for salvation is not saving belief. I rewrote nothing and you simply refuse to believe.
Christ's logic does not agree with your faulty human logic. Believeth not = believeth not. Not baptized = not baptized. There are believers who have died without having the opportunity to be baptized (just ask the thief on the cross) and there are unbelievers who have been baptized. Just look at all the false religions and cults there are in the world that claim to be Christian but promote salvation by works. (2 Corinthians 4:3,4)
In Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, (you simply stop right there and hang your hat) yet when Peter uses this phrase, he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). It's your preconceived ideas that negate the rest of the verse.
It's not the mechanical act of getting water baptized that literally saves us - not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience," through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." We could paraphrase Peter's statement by saying, "Baptism now saves you--not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents." So why all the extra verbiage if Peter simply meant to say that we are literally saved by water baptism?
The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.”
Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark ..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household. (Hebrews 11:7) Yet you are in denial about the ark literally saving Noah and his family, so you do not agree with Hebrews 11:7. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself. It blows my mind how you deliberately disregarded Hebrews 11:7 in order to uphold your false doctrine. Apparently, you would walk around mountains of grace in order to find water.
In spite of you so desperately wanting to believe that Noah and his family were "literally" saved by water and not the ark, which accommodates your theological bias, based on the text ONLY (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished. You seem to focus mainly on the words, "saved by water" (KJV) in 1 Peter 3:20 and assume this means the water is what literally saved Noah and his family, however, the Greek is saved "through" (di) water. (NKJV, NASB, NIV). The ESV reads ..eight persons, were brought safely through water. Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. (Hebrews 11:7)
You are so wrong. There is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is SPIRIT baptism, not water baptism.
Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. (Also see John 4:10,14; 7:37-39) for the word drink/drinks. You are drinking the wrong water. Did you notice, we were ALL (believers) baptized by one Spirit into one body. This is not something that only happened twice in history as Campbellites teach in a desperate attempt to get around Acts 10:43-47. Don't confuse Spirit baptism with receiving spiritual gifts.
We are not literally saved by water baptism just as the eight souls were not literally saved by water. We are literally saved by Christ just as the eight souls were literally saved by a wooden ark (Hebrews 11:7) which is a type of Christ.
The washing of regeneration is not accomplished by water baptism. The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* (Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5), of the "washing of regeneration." Washing refers to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. It's the blood of Christ that washes away our sins and not H20.
You fail to understand that a symbol is not the reality but is a picture of the reality. Everything you expect to happen during water baptism is merely signified but is not procured in water baptism. The appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).
In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
Acts 10:43 - whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins before water baptism. (Acts 10:44-47) No good conscience apart from faith.
Water baptism is not a part of the gospel. (1 Corinthians 1:17) The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.
The gospel is a message of grace that is to be received through faith. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish (including water baptism) as a prerequisite for salvation. We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel. (Romans 10:16) You are teaching a "different" gospel. A perverted gospel.
Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification) and that through faith, believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by faith, not baptism. *Hermeneutics. Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs "through faith." Christians are "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" (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about "through faith" - and is properly symbolized by dipping the new believer in and out of the water.
Obadiah
Well-known member
There is that old line that the thief was baptized in his own sweat.
Seabass
Active member
Col 2 speaks of a spiritual circumcision made without hands, it says nothing at all about a baptism made without hands.
Col 2 then would be the one baptism of Eph 4:5 which is Christ's baptism of the Great commission which had humans (disciples) administering water baptism as Phillip administered water baptism to the eunuch. Peter commanded the Gentiles to be water baptized, Acts 10:47-48 the one baptism of Eph 4:5. 1 Pet 3:21, Peter further confirms water baptism being that one baptism.
That one water baptism has been commanded, therefore water baptism is how one obeys the gospel (2 Thess 1:8) in dying to sin, buried in a watery grave then resurrected up from that watery grave to walk in newness of life. Nowhere is any of this said about some 'spirit' baptism.....no one has been commanded to be "spirit' baptized, no where is it said "spirit' baptism saves, humans (disciples) cannot administer any kind of 'spirit' baptism, no where is it said there is a death burial & resurrection is some kind of "spirit' baptism.
Seabass
Active member
Christ's in Mk 16:16 gives a logical progression of steps ... one must take step 1 (believe) BEFORE taking step 2 (baptism) BEFORE step 3 (salvation). If your analogy does not have this logical progression then your analogy is dishonest and you are comparing apples to oranges.
You post: "Although it logically follows that we wash down medication with water yet if no water is available, you can still take it dry without washing it down with water", In the part I underlined in bold, you have been caught red-handed trying to make that step optional (washing down with water) when Christ did not make baptism optional. This is YOUR dishonesty on display here.
More illogic. Again, one must climb mountain X, and plant a US flag on top of mountains X one shall recieve $10,000.
In my analogy, NO STEP IS OPTIONAL as NO STEP IS OPTIONAL in Mk 16:16 unlike your corrupt analogy....step 2 in planting a flag on top of the mountain is NOT OPTIONAL in receiving $10,000. Christ did not make step 2 baptism optional. Yet you attempt to deceive us and try and make washing medicine down with water optional. Christ did not make step 2 baptism an option in receiving salvation yet you try and create an optional step in receiving health. Again, your analogy is deceptive, it is an apple to oranges comparison in attempting to compare it to Mk 16:16.
LOGICALLY one cannot plant a flag ontop of a mountain one has not yet ascended. Therefore if I say 'John hath not ascended the mountain" we can correctly logically deduce John has not planted a flag on top. LIKEWISE we can correctly logically deduce that "he that believeth" has not been baptized since belief is a necessary prerequisite to baptism. It therefore is not logically necessary for Christ to say he that believeth not and baptized not due to unbeleif when we already logically know "believeth not" includes not being baptized.
Your arguments are not logical.
God has commanded water baptism, water baptism being an imperative If for no other reason makes it necessary. Yet you try and undermine God';s commands with your biased theology in making water baptism OPTIONAL as seen above.....God's command make it essential. If one can be saved while disobeying the command to be water baptized then one can be saved while disobeying all God's commands. We no longer need a Bible to follow to save us if we can create our own personal biased theologies to saved us.
You blantantly blind your self to Peter saying "baptism doeth also NOW SAVE US"...cased closed your faith only dies here.
BAPTISM SAVES US--BAPTISM SAVES US--- BAPTISM SAVES US--- BAPTISM SAVES US.....faith onlyists BAPTISM DOES NOT save us.
When people reach this point they are beyond hope.
I showed the OT type to NT antitype Peter made;
OT type-----------saved by water (flood)
NT antitype------saved by water (baptism)
An antitype is a mirror reflection of the type, so note the mirror reflection.... "saved by water" mirror reflects exactly "saved by water". Peter did not say 'saved by an ark' for that was not his point in making the OT type to NT antitype.....saved by an ark is not a mirror reflection of saved by water.
Your arguments are not logical now you rewrite the Bible to force your theology into it.
You say I desperately want to believe Noah was saved by LITERAL WATER and not an ark.
WOW.
Peter said saved by water, flood water was LITERAL water. Peter did not say saved by an ark for that would not fit his type to antitype comparison. We are saved by God in literal water baptism as Noah was saved by LITERAL water AS PETER SAID.... saved by water.
I am not desperate, you are upset an inspired Apostle named Peter did not say what YOU THINK he should have said for what he said does not fit your personal bias.
More deception. You are trying to rewrite Acts 2:38 for it does not fit your personal bias and then try to deceive us with the false facade of using "grammar" in trying to rewrite it. Grammar, Greek, syntax, context has NOTHING AT ALL to do with your rewriting Acts 2:38, your rewrite is based solely on personal bias and NOTHING ELSE.
You try and rewrite Acts 2:38 to read ....'you all repent for remission of sins and then be baptized'.....or some such way as this. Yet there is not a major English translation I know of that has Acts 2:38 your way for it is a CORRUPT translation of the Greek.
KJV
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
ASV
And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Note I underline the word 'your" in the ASV. Your whole argument centers around that word 'your' hymon. Note that the KJV simple says "remission of sins" with "your" left completely out. So your whole argument is based on translation variants. Is the word "your" even in the original Greek? If not, your argument is dead. Is the word your in the original Greek? I do not know but your whole argument is tenuous at best on that word "your" being in the original or not.
Even if we assume "your" is in the original it does not help your cause;
ASV
And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you (hymon) in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your (hymon) sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Hymon is used twice, but the first use does not come under attack for it is accepted without controversy that a plural 'you' modifes singular 'baptized'. If it is without controversy a plural 'you' can be modify a singular 'baptized' then it should be EQUALLY without controversy a plural 'your' can also modify a singular 'baptized' but you want controversy NOT because of grammar but because of personal bias.
What are you going to do with other plural - singular mismatches?
example, in Acts 2:6 -- Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
'every man' is singular but 'heard' is plural. If the mismatch in v38 negates baptism then the mismatch in v6 negates they all heard the apostles speak in their own language.
1 Cor 16:2
Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
"you" is plural, 'lay by him in store' is singular. if the mismatch in Acts 2:38 negates water baptism then the mismatch here negates taking up a contribution.
Last edited:
mailmandan
Well-known member
Once again, Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. Jesus clarifies the first clause of Mark 16:16 with, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned." If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
So much for logical progression of steps here. It's your analogy and faulty human logic that is blatantly dishonest.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Nothing is optional with you because you teach salvation by works. If Jesus was making baptism absolutely necessary for salvation in Mark 16:16 then He would have said, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned" but that is NOT what Jesus said. Swallowing medicine without washing it down with water is possible (been there, done that) and it's the medicine that makes a person well and not the water. That was my point. You were deceptive in butchering my analogy and trying to make it conform to your faulty analogy. Show me in Scripture where Jesus specifically said, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." I'll be waiting.
More faulty human logic. Belief and baptism are two distinct things.
Understanding Scripture goes beyond your faulty human logic. I don't expect you to understand. (1 Corinthians 2:11-14)
So, show me where God said, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." Jesus clearly stated in Mark 16:16(b) and John 3:18 that whoever does not believe will be condemned, but Jesus never said that about baptism. hmm..
It's your biased theology that results in your eisegesis.
It's not about disobeying the command to be baptized. I could not wait to get water baptized AFTER I believed the gospel and was saved (Acts 10:43-47) so I did not disobey that command. (Acts 10:48) Baptism put it in it's proper place, subsequent to salvation through faith in Christ as all rites and works must be. Baptism is for believers, and believers are already saved, for the Bible says we are saved by grace through faith, not by rites or religious works, or good works. (Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5 etc..). This does not remove good works/acts of obedience (including water baptism) from the Christian life, it just puts them in their proper place, subsequent to regeneration and salvation.
Your saved by H20 dies here, along with the wicked who came in contact with the water and drown in the flood because you only isolate the words from that you want to hear and ignore the rest of verse in which Peter goes on to explain what he means. You are a cherry picker.
(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We see here that Peter guards against water salvation. It was the ark that literally saved Noah and his family. (Hebrews 11:17) This is what happens when water-salvationists cherry pick Scripture.
Oh, the irony. I sensed that you were beyond hope (thoroughly indoctrinated into Campbellism and blinded by the god of this world - 2 Corinthians 4:3,4) even back when you were banned from Christian Chat but with God all things are possible. I will continue to pray for you.
Your biased explanation misses the mark. I showed you the Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.” Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household).
Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark ..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household. (Hebrews 11:7) Yet you are in denial about the ark literally saving Noah and his family, so you do not agree with Hebrews 11:7. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.
You are the master of irony.
Yes WOW. How you blatantly ignore Hebrews 11:7 (built an ARK for the saving of his household) is disturbing to say the least!
You are as thick as a brick. This does not mean the water is what literally saved Noah and his family. Take the ARK out of the equation and watch how fast Noah and his family would have drowned in the flood waters. The water did not save the unrighteous who drowned either. The Greek is saved "through" (di) water. (NKJV, NASB, NIV). The ESV reads ..eight persons, were brought safely through water. Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. (Hebrews 11:7)
You confuse the picture with the reality. That remains your Achilles heel in regard to water baptism. You are so desperate to boast in your baptism that you are blind to the big picture and to the gospel.
You are desperate. I'm not upset. Just sad for you.
I properly harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. You simply distort and pervert passages of Scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so-called gospel plan. Which explains your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 that does not harmonize with (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18).
I did not rewrite Acts 2:38. I simply harmonized Acts 2:38 with (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18)
Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson authored Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he said, - “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”
When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA238.pdf
Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
https://christiandefense.org/general/3871/
mailmandan
Well-known member
Salvation through faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation does not imply that repentance never took place in the process of changing our mind and choosing to place our faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation (Acts 20:21) or that the word of faith is in our heart but not in our mouth together. (Romans 10:8-10) Confession is a confirmation of faith (which is why we will be saved if we confess) and is not a work for salvation after one believes unto righteousness. Baptism does not literally save us (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Grace and the blood of Christ is God's part.
Biblical hope is not some cross your fingers hope I win the lottery kind of hope. Unlike the English word "hope," the N.T. word contains no uncertainty; it speaks of something that is certain. - Strong's #1680 elpís (from elpō, "to anticipate, welcome") – properly, expectation of what is sure (certain); hope.
Strong's Greek: 1680. ἐλπίς (elpis) -- expectation, hope
If we have saving faith in Christ, then we have this hope. Faith is the substance of things hoped for.. (Hebrews 11:1). So that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:7).
So, it's not salvation by belief only in that sense (nothing else applies at all). Its salvation happens the moment that we place our faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation (hence, belief/faith alone) we are saved. This does not negate that it was by God's grace that we were saved through faith or that the blood of Christ is the means of our salvation or that repentance never happened, or the word of faith was never in our mouth etc.. Yet this all takes place before water baptism. This will be extremely difficult for you to understand, since you cling to works-salvation. We need to rely on the Holy Spirit for wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:11-14) and not human wisdom/faulty human logic and legalism.
Seabass
Active member
Due to the simplicity of Mk 16:16 one must work very hard at misunderstanding it as you are working hard with faulty logic and grammar.Once again, Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. Jesus clarifies the first clause of Mark 16:16 with, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned." If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
So much for logical progression of steps here. It's your analogy and faulty human logic that is blatantly dishonest.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Nothing is optional with you because you teach salvation by works. If Jesus was making baptism absolutely necessary for salvation in Mark 16:16 then He would have said, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned" but that is NOT what Jesus said. Swallowing medicine without washing it down with water is possible (been there, done that) and it's the medicine that makes a person well and not the water. That was my point. You were deceptive in butchering my analogy and trying to make it conform to your faulty analogy. Show me in Scripture where Jesus specifically said, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." I'll be waiting.
More faulty human logic. Belief and baptism are two distinct things.
Understanding Scripture goes beyond your faulty human logic. I don't expect you to understand. (1 Corinthians 2:11-14)
So, show me where God said, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." Jesus clearly stated in Mark 16:16(b) and John 3:18 that whoever does not believe will be condemned, but Jesus never said that about baptism. hmm..
It's your biased theology that results in your eisegesis.
It's not about disobeying the command to be baptized. I could not wait to get water baptized AFTER I believed the gospel and was saved (Acts 10:43-47) so I did not disobey that command. (Acts 10:48) Baptism put it in it's proper place, subsequent to salvation through faith in Christ as all rites and works must be. Baptism is for believers, and believers are already saved, for the Bible says we are saved by grace through faith, not by rites or religious works, or good works. (Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5 etc..). This does not remove good works/acts of obedience (including water baptism) from the Christian life, it just puts them in their proper place, subsequent to regeneration and salvation.
Your saved by H20 dies here, along with the wicked who came in contact with the water and drown in the flood because you only isolate the words from that you want to hear and ignore the rest of verse in which Peter goes on to explain what he means. You are a cherry picker.
(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We see here that Peter guards against water salvation. It was the ark that literally saved Noah and his family. (Hebrews 11:17) This is what happens when water-salvationists cherry pick Scripture.
Oh, the irony. I sensed that you were beyond hope (thoroughly indoctrinated into Campbellism and blinded by the god of this world - 2 Corinthians 4:3,4) even back when you were banned from Christian Chat but with God all things are possible. I will continue to pray for you.
Your biased explanation misses the mark. I showed you the Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.” Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household).
Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark ..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household. (Hebrews 11:7) Yet you are in denial about the ark literally saving Noah and his family, so you do not agree with Hebrews 11:7. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.
You are the master of irony.
Yes WOW. How you blatantly ignore Hebrews 11:7 (built an ARK for the saving of his household) is disturbing to say the least!
You are as thick as a brick. This does not mean the water is what literally saved Noah and his family. Take the ARK out of the equation and watch how fast Noah and his family would have drowned in the flood waters. The water did not save the unrighteous who drowned either. The Greek is saved "through" (di) water. (NKJV, NASB, NIV). The ESV reads ..eight persons, were brought safely through water. Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. (Hebrews 11:7)
You confuse the picture with the reality. That remains your Achilles heel in regard to water baptism. You are so desperate to boast in your baptism that you are blind to the big picture and to the gospel.
You are desperate. I'm not upset. Just sad for you.
I properly harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. You simply distort and pervert passages of Scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so-called gospel plan. Which explains your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 that does not harmonize with (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18).
I did not rewrite Acts 2:38. I simply harmonized Acts 2:38 with (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18)
Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson authored Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he said, - “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”
When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA238.pdf
Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
https://christiandefense.org/general/3871/
1)
Back in post 1099 I showed how Baptist Greek scholar AT Robertson and others said that the participles 'teaching' and 'baptizing' are modal participles, meaning that 'teaching' and 'baptizing' are the mode, the means as to HOW disciples are made......meaning no teaching and no baptizing = no disciples. Meaning there is no such thing as an untaught, unbaptized Christian. The idea of an unbaptized Christian only exists in the imagination of some men.
Since there is just one great commission and the Bible does not contradict itself, then Mark's great commission would EQUALLY make baptism essential to being a Christian and saved as Matthew's account. Mark and Matthew do not contradict each other as you contradict them. You then must work hard at misunderstanding Matthew's account also.
==========================================
2)
I also showed that Mk 16:16 is a compound sentence with two subjects 1) salvation 2) condemnation.
Christ tied 2 conditions to salvation, belief and baptism;
a) the conjunction 'and' makes them inseparable and gives them both equal weight and necessity to being saved and no amount of your grammatical gymnastics can change this.
b) Christ made belief a prerequisite to being baptized since it is not possible for an unbeliever to be scripturally baptized
Christ gave just ONE condition to being lost that being unbelief;
a) since belief is a necessary prerequisite to being baptized then we can logically know an unbeliever is also unbaptized. Hence it is not logical and would be redundant to say 'he that believeth not and is baptized not shall be condemned'.
b) since the rebellion of unblief is all that is necessary and sufficient to be lost, then there is no logical reason or sense for Christ to add other rebellions as in rebelling to be baptized or rebelling to confess Christ to be lost (Mt 10:32-33) since the one and only rebellion in not believing is sufficient in itself to being lost. It is illogical and senseless to say 'he that believeth not and is baptized not' since unbelief is the one and only condition Christ tied to being condemned. Men do not have the authority to come behind Christ and start changing the conditions He created for salvation and condemnation just to force their biased theology into the verse.
==========================================
3)
order matter and so does the conjunction 'and'
Mk 16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved
Christ makes a similar statement in Jn 5:24
He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,
Similarities:
a)
Christ made hearing prerequisite to believing since one cannot believe what he has not heard
Likewise Christ made belief prerequsite to baptism since an unbeliever cannot be scripturally baptized
b)
Christ tied hearing to believing with conjunction 'and' making them both inseparable and both equally necessary to having everlasting life
CHrist tied belief to baptism with conjunction 'and' making both inseparable and both equally necessary to being saved
If you can wave your faith only magic wand and just magically make baptism nonessenatial in Mk 16 then there is nothing to stop another person from making believing nonessential in Jn 5. Combining both verses, Jesus made hearing as essential as believing and believing as essential as baptism and He put hearing, belief and baptism BEFORE salvation and no amount of wrangling by faith onlyists can ever change Christ's words and order of the those words.
===========================================
4)
Comparison
Does what you post compare to what Christ said:
in post 1115 you posted the following:
he who takes his medication
AND
washes it down with water will be made well
but
he who does not take his medication will remain sick
---- you tied 'taking medication' to 'washing it down with water' with the conjunction "and" making BOTH taking and washing inseparable and made BOTH equally necessary in being made well.
So what is the difference between Christ and you? YOU BACKTRACKED!!! After connecting 'taking medication' with 'washing it down' with "and" thereby making both necessary, you then decide that washing it down is not necessary now making washing it down an option. If washing it down with water was never necessary then why mention it at all?
Yet Christ NEVER BACKTRACKED after he made baptism necessary tying it to belief with 'and'. For Christ not only made baptism necessary in the great commission in Matthew's and Mark's accounts, Christ CONTINUED to make baptism necessary in order to have remission of sins (Acts 2) necessary to walk in newness of life (Rom 6) to be in the body of Christ (1 Cor 12) to be saved (1 Pet 3) and Christ took the death burial and resurrection that takes place in water baptism necessary to obeying the gospel in order to not be in lost in flaming fire (2 Thess 1:8).
===================================
5)
The Greek shows the necessity of water baptism in Mk 16 as does the English;
---both verbs 'believeth' and 'baptized' are aorist tense participles meaning the verse can correctly be rendered....'he who having already believed and having already been baptized is the one that shall be saved'.
--"shall be saved" is future tense rather than aorist and is the leading verb. Greek scholars (*) have noted that it is usual in the Greek that the aorist participles occur BEFORE the lead verb. Meaning BOTH belief AND baptism must already be accomplished BEFORE one can have the future promise of 'shall be saved'
---hence in the Bible, baptism is always put BEFORE salvation. And since the BIble does not contradict itself then baptism is always put BEFORE salvation as in Acts 2:38 meaning baptism must already be accomplished BEFORE reception of the remission of sins/being saved.... further exposing the corruption of some in trying to make 'eis' mean 'because'
(*)
Heiser, Michael S. (2005), Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems).
Dana, H.E. & Mantey, Julius R. (1955), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan).
Last edited:
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Nope. Scripture is clear that SALVATION IS BY FAITH. Then you can be baptized. Baptism in and of itself changes NOTHING.
Similar threads
