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

[koberstein]

Do you think Peter would be taken back by that man obeying Acts 2:38?

Yes

 

[Truther]

What are you talking about now? Don't blame Jesus.

You are misinterpreting acts 2:38. Any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Therefore, Acts 2:38, when interpreted correctly, does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.

Here's what you're missing:

Why, then, do some come to the conclusion that we must be baptized in order to be saved? Often, the discussion of whether or not this passage teaches baptism is required for salvation centers around the Greek word eis that is translated “for” in this passage. Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for salvation are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.”

As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1--“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” So any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage. Got?

No, you are saying, Jesus said to be saved one way, and Peter said to be saved another way. Peter clearly said that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins. You are saying that Peter was debunked by Jesus when Jesus told the 12 that they are made clean. Which one is it? Did Jesus debunk Peter? should he have waited to debunk Peter after Peter told the 3000 to obey Acts 2:38?

 

[Truther]

Yes

So Peter tells people in the first century to obey Acts 2:38, but would tell people in the latter times to disobey it, correct?

 

[Truther]

Your words "Burials are bloody. You should know that." You can die of old age or you can be strangled to death neither one involves the shedding of blood. And once again burials are not bloody. The bodies have been cleaned prior to burial.

Do you also think the death of the animals were not bloody at the altar in the tabernacle? Did you notice that the priest would wash off the blood before he went into the holy place? Have you thought about the death and washing symbolism?
Could it possibly be a symbol of the born-again plan of salvation? The priest would kill the animal, Jesus died, we die.
The priest would wash, Jesus washed, we wash at water baptism.
The priest would enter into the holy of holies, Jesus passed the veil, we received the Holy Ghost.
Could all of this be a mere coincidence?

Since we are New Testament priest, we have to follow Jesus through his death, burial, and resurrection in this precise manner. This manner is exactly why Peter told them to obey him per Acts 2:38. Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the Holy Ghost. Not one, not two, but all three steps.

 

[Truther]

What are you talking about now? Don't blame Jesus.

You are misinterpreting acts 2:38. Any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Therefore, Acts 2:38, when interpreted correctly, does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.

Here's what you're missing:

Why, then, do some come to the conclusion that we must be baptized in order to be saved? Often, the discussion of whether or not this passage teaches baptism is required for salvation centers around the Greek word eis that is translated “for” in this passage. Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for salvation are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.”

As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1--“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” So any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage. Got?

What is the proper interpretation for this…

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…

 

[Truther]

I just looked it up… Alexander Campbell baptized in the titles. He was another one that refused to baptize in the name of Jesus. He was an Acts skipper too.
Just another Catholic offshoot.

 

[koberstein]

I just looked it up… Alexander Campbell baptized in the titles. He was another one that refused to baptize in the name of Jesus. He was an Acts skipper too.
Just another Catholic offshoot.

No he was a disgruntled Baptist

 

[Truther]

No he was a disgruntled Baptist

Correct, but he did not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Nobody received remission of sins because he failed to do it in the name of Jesus. He was wasting his time and they were only getting people wet.

 

[Truther]

Thought for the day. God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. Circumcision is a type of water baptism. I wonder what God thinks about those that don’t believe baptism is important to salvation? Did God take a chill pill?

 

[Obadiah]

What is the proper interpretation for this…

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…

You could try reading through the thread as it's been explained many times. But here's a hint. The Greek word eis that is translated “for” That's enabling you to misinterpreted Acts 2:38.

Also requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

His death is what saves us. Not anything we do. Paul clearly shows that salvation is on the basis of faith, not works.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

 

[Aeliana]

Do you also think the death of the animals were not bloody at the altar in the tabernacle? Did you notice that the priest would wash off the blood before he went into the holy place? Have you thought about the death and washing symbolism?
Could it possibly be a symbol of the born-again plan of salvation? The priest would kill the animal, Jesus died, we die.
The priest would wash, Jesus washed, we wash at water baptism.
The priest would enter into the holy of holies, Jesus passed the veil, we received the Holy Ghost.
Could all of this be a mere coincidence?

Since we are New Testament priest, we have to follow Jesus through his death, burial, and resurrection in this precise manner. This manner is exactly why Peter told them to obey him per Acts 2:38. Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the Holy Ghost. Not one, not two, but all three steps.

What does that have to do With your comment.... "Burials are bloody. You should know that"?

But you're right about water baptism being a symbol. And that's all it is. It's not part of your salvation. The Bible does not say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

 

[Doug Brents]

So if you haven't been saved and you pray and ask god for forgiveness, One needs to obey the gospel in Repentance. Let's look at that for a second, If when you say repentance you mean, stop sinning before coming to Jesus, then you are dead wrong. If we could stop sinning before coming to Jesus, then why do we need Jesus? But if when you say repentance you mean, the asking of forgiveness and the turning from your sin as evidence of salvation, then I’m down.

If you sin one time, then repent and never sin again, you are still condemned for eternity. Just not sinning anymore does not bring about forgiveness for the sins you have already committed. So I do not mean just stop sinning, although making the effort to do so is part of it.

But turning from your sins is not "evidence of salvation", because turning from sin toward God is required BEFORE salvation is received. That doesn't mean that we stop sinning, but that we begin seeking God first instead of seeking sinful gratification.

Romans 10:9 states, “Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead. So that's a given.

Indeed.

Baptism is not part of the gospel.

“If baptism is an essential requirement within the plan of salvation, why did Paul dismiss it as NOT being a part of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17)?”

Paul did not dismiss baptism as not being part of the Gospel. Paul is saying that he did not come to reap a harvest, but to plant seeds. Baptism is part of the Gospel, because it is the point at which we receive the fruit of the Gospel: salvation applied directly to our soul. It is in baptism that sin is cut from our soul, that we die to sin, and we are united with Jesus. Nothing else in Scripture is noted as the point at which these things happen.

 

[Truther]

You could try reading through the thread as it's been explained many times. But here's a hint. The Greek word eis that is translated “for” That's enabling you to misinterpreted Acts 2:38.

Also requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

His death is what saves us. Not anything we do. Paul clearly shows that salvation is on the basis of faith, not works.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

No, what exactly should I be thinking when I read this…

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…

Don’t round about it, explain the verse.

 

[Truther]

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and don’t worry about being baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…

Is this what it is trying to tell me?

 

[Truther]

What does that have to do With your comment.... "Burials are bloody. You should know that"?

But you're right about water baptism being a symbol. And that's all it is. It's not part of your salvation. The Bible does not say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

The Bible says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. What’s the reverse of that?

He that does not believe and is obviously not baptized shall be lost. Correct?

 

[koberstein]

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and don’t worry about being baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…

Is this what it is trying to tell me?

Maybe a good place to start.

 

[Truther]

Maybe a good place to start.

We are definitely in the last days.

 

[koberstein]

We are definitely in the last days.

Really? How could you tell?

 

[Truther]

The Bible says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
It also says repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

You guys say don’t worry about it. You don’t have to be baptized.

What is this world coming to?

 

[Doug Brents]

You could try reading through the thread as it's been explained many times. But here's a hint. The Greek word eis that is translated “for” That's enabling you to misinterpreted Acts 2:38.

What does the Greek word "eis" mean? It means "for", which could mean "because you already have" or it could mean "in order to receive". Which one is it?

Well, lets look at a similar passage near at hand. Acts 2:38 says "repent and be baptized "for" the remission of sins". "For" here is referring back to both "repent" and "be baptized", and has the same meaning for both. Acts 3:19 says, "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away". Here we see that repentance is to be done "in order to receive", NOT "because you have already received".

Now, "for" in Acts 2:38 cannot mean one thing for "repent" and a different thing for "be baptized". The meaning of "for" has to be the same for both, and based on Acts 3:19, it has to mean "in order to receive".