Yes the command was to wash
I am sure you must realize one may wash without entirely submerging oneself under water.
The Water Baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13
- Thread starter Seabass
- Start date
I am sure you must realize one may wash without entirely submerging oneself under water.
Eternally-Grateful
Active member
Yes, I know that..
And what was it transliterated on those verses. but translated in the others?
Again, I gave you all the possible greek definitions as used in Jesus day
Right it was a said faith, not true faith.
Doug Brents
Well-known member
What does it mean to "trust Him"? Hmm? Is trust an internal, mental-only concept?
In Aladdin, when Al asks Jasmine, "Do you trust me?", what is he asking her? What is her response? If she had not taken his hand and jumped with him, and then later taken his hand and gotten on the rug, would she have really trusted him, no matter what she said or thought? The obvious answer is no, she would not have trusted him. The same goes for us and God. If we don't do what He said, then we don't really trust Him.
NO, it is not. Did Naaman cure his own leprosy? If he could have, then as he said, he would have done it in one of the clean rivers in his own country, not come to Israel and done it in the dirty Jordan.
Baptism is an act of faith.
Eternally-Grateful
Active member
when you trust something, you believe in them
when they hand you a gift. you recieve it in faith.
There are many acts of faith. Your focused on baptism.
If baptism is the only work you do. it does not prove you had faith in God.. if this is what your getting at. Your worse off than I thought,.
Again, Your saying you trust God.
but then you insert self in the equation.
You plus God does not equal God.
No you quoted Strongs
But as I stated the only actual translations of baptizo seen in the major translations is wash and cleanse and bathe (asv)
Anciently
4. Euthymius, a learned Greek father, 4th century,, renders baptizo to sprinkle, (rantidzo). Alford, on Mark vii. 4. 5. Schwarzius, to sprinkle, to besprinkle, to pour upon. Ingham (Baptist) Handbook on Baptism, p. 40, and in Booth's Pedobaptist, in Baptist Library, p. 351-2. 6. Grimshaw, (copied) "besprinkle.”28 THE GREAT CARROLLTON DEBATE. 7. Ed. Robinson, "the more general idea of ablution or affusion.” 8. Kouma, native Greek, besprinkle, shed forth. 9. Wahl, edition of 1831, to sprinkle (perfundo). 10. Parkhurst, 111, effusion, copying Stokius. 11. Liddell & Scott, 1st edition, steep, wet, pour upon. 12. Suicer, by immersion or sprinkling (per immersionem aut aspersionem). 13. Schneider, wie brecho (as that word in meaning), shed forth, sprinkle, wet. 14. Sophocles, ablution, bathed (baptized) in tears. 15. Ed. Leigh, to sprinkle (adspergere). 16. Wolfius, sprinkle (aspersione). 17. Walaeus, indifferently sprinkling, or immersion (aspersione an immersione). Leigh's Grit. Sac. 18. Vossius, iii. (adspergere) to sprinkle. 19. Arst, perfusion (perfusionem). 20. Schaetgennius, to pour forth (profundo). 21. Ewing, pour abundantly upon, i. e., infuse. Ingham, p. 39. Elder Wilkes, Louisville Debate, 511, reports him overwhelmed by pouring upon, drench or impregnate with liquor by affusion. 22. Gazes, learned native Greek, shed forth anything, water, pour upon (epichuno), epi, upon; and cheo, pour. 23. Stokius. As the three following lexicons are so important, and so generally garbled, we will read their definitions in full, the more as Stokius and Schleusner are of the class that believed that wash, sprinkle, etc., were meanings derived from the idea of dipping or immersing. Stokius, "baptidzo, lavo, baptizo, passivum baptidzomai, luor, lavor— I wash, (wash, wet, besprinkle), I baptize, passive voice, I am washed. " He then gives its classic, or general meaning, as he understood it, in the usual note be appends to most words, where he analyzes it from the unscientific and false standpoint of that day, refuted by both sides now. "Generally, and by the force of the word, it obtains the sense of dipMODE OF BAPTISM. 29 ping or immersing. Specially (a) properly it is to immerse or dip in water. (b) Tropically, (1) by a metalepsis, it is to wash (lavare), or cleanse (abluere), because anything is accustomed to be dipped or immersed in water, that it may be washed or cleansed, (ut lavetur, vel abluatur, quamquam et adspergendo aquam, lotio vel ablutio fieri queat et soleat, Mark vii. 4; Luke xi. 38. Hinc transferetur ad baptismi sacramentum, etc. .. Per Met. designed (a] miranulosam Spiritus S. [sancti] eff'usionem super apostolos, aliosque credentes, tum ob donorum Spiritus S., copiam, prout olim aqua baptizandis copiose affundebatur, vel illi penitus in aquam immergebantur, etc. ) Note well this author, —"that it may be washed or cleansed, although also, the washing or cleansing can be, and GENERALLY is, accomplished BY SPRINKLING THE WATER, Mark vii. 4, Luke xi. 38. Hence, it is transferred to the sacrament of baptism. " Here Stokius, always heralded as the prince of immersion lexicons, tells us that the washing of baptidzo was generally (soleat fieri) accomplished (adspergendo) by sprinkling the water, and cites the gospels of Mark and Luke as his proofs; — in view of that fact, the term is "applied to the sacrament of baptism, " and quotes a number of texts on that point. But he does not stop there. "3. Metaphorically, it designates (a) the miraculous pouring out (effusionem) of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and other believers, as well on account of the abundance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, since anciently the water was copiously poured upon those baptized, or they were immersed deep in the water, etc. " Here Stokius declares that because the water was copiously poured on those baptized, hence the New Testament writers apply baptidzo to the miraculous pouring out of the Spirit. 24. Schleusner has been claimed as a great witness for exclusive immersion. I hold him as well as Stokius in my hand. He is a great standard. "Properly: I immerse or dip, I plunge into water, from bapto, and answers to (i. e., translates] tabhal, 2 Kings v. 14, in the Alexandrian version, and tabha in [the version of] Symmachus, Ps. 68, 5. and in an uncertain one [i. e., who translated it, ] Ps. ix. 6. But in this sense it never occurs in the New Testament, but very frequently [it30 THE GREAT CARROLLTON DEBATE. does] in Greek writers [i. e., classics], for example, Diodorus Siculus i. 36, of the overflowing of the Nile (de Nilo exundante), etc. " "Strabo, Polybius, etc. " Like Stokius, he now derives wash, cleanse, from the idea of dipping in water that an object may be washed, "hence, 2. abluo, lavo, aqua purgo"— I cleanse, I wash, I purify with water. Thus (sic) it occurs in the New Testament, " etc. He cites cases, renders it wash (lavare) each time, or baptizo—" not only to wash, but even to wash one's self can be proved by many passages. Hence, it is transferred to the solemn rite of baptism. " He shows where, in this connection, the Greek baptidzo interchanged in many codices (MSS. ) with rantidzo, sprinkle. He continues: "4. Metaphorically, as the Latin (imbuo) to imbue, to give and administer to copiously, POOR FORTH (profundo) abundantly. " Such is the testimony of this learned lexicographer. His sense is—baptidzo is not used modally in the New Testament at all. It is used for an ordinance, a rite. It may be performed in any mode possible—dip, sprinkle, pour. In the mere sense of dip, etc., it never occurs there— in the classic sense it never occurs, as in Diodorus Sic. 1, Strabo, Polybius— in the mere sense of "tabhal and tabha" in Hebrew. Note, he gives "pour" as one of its New Testament uses. 25. Passow. We reserve this to the last, because it is admitted by all scholars—German, English, American—by immersionists and affusionists to be the most learned, most scientific and critical of all Greek lexicons ever issued—1841 —being in three large volumes, the one I hold having 1, 884 pages in it, double column, fine print. Hence, the falsity of Liddell and Scott, whose lexicon, far smaller than this one volume, though coarser print also, is claimed to be an enlargement of this ! It is in German. "Baptidzo, from bapto, 1, oft and repeatedly to immerse, to submerge, with eis and pros, etc. Thence, to moisten, to wet, sprinkle (benetzen, anfeuchten, begiessen... ubr., ubergiessen, uberschutten, uberhaufen, etc. ) ... generally TO BESPRINKLE, TO POUR UPON, to overwhelm, to burden with taxes, debts, etc.... 3. to baptize, suffer one's self to be baptized; also to bathe, to wash. " Such is Passow's and Host's testimony.MODE OF BAPTISM. 3
Graves-Ditzler debate
Doug Brents
Well-known member
It is irrelevant if he was told to submerge himself or not. What matters is that he did what God told him to do, and God cured him when he obeyed. Regardless of what it was he was told to do. It was not he who cured himself. It was God who cured him WHEN HE OBEYED!!!
Eternally-Grateful
Active member
Actually no I did not. I do not use strongs. I use Logos. I have multiple greek and english texts which i use.
from wuest: word studys in the NT greek
Baptise, baptism, these two words are not native to the english language, therefore do not have any intrinsic meaning of their own. The only rightfull meaning they can have is the one derived from the greek word of which they are the spelling. The verb is spelled Baptizo, from which a slight change in spelling we get our worde baptize, the noun is baptisma, and taking off the last letter we have baptism.
we will study these words first in their classic usage. The word baptizo is related to another greek word bapto. the latter meant to dip, dip under. it was used of the smith tempering the red hot steel. it was also used of the sense of to dip in die, to color or steep. it was used in the act of dyeing the hair, and of glazing earthen vessels. it was used as a proverb in the sense of "steeping someone in crimson". that is giving him a bloody coxcomb. It meant also to fill by dipping in, to draw. It was used of a ship that dipped, that is sank. Baptiso the related word meant to dip repeatedly. it was used of the act of sinking ships. it meant also to bathe. it was used in the phrase soaked in wine. where the word soaked, is the meaning of baptizo. it is found in the phrase overhead and ears in debt, where the word overhead and ears, are the graphic nature of what the word meant. the word here therefor means completely submerged. our present day english equivilent would be sunk. A baptes is one who dips or dyes. a baptisis is a dipping, bathing, a washing, a drawing of water. A baptisma is that which is dipped, a baptisteron is a bathing place, a baptistes is one that dips, a dyer, baptos means dipped, dyed. bright colored, drawn like water.
Baptizo is used in the 9th book of the odyssey, where the hissing of the burning eye of the cyclops is compared to the sound of water where the smith dips ( baptizo) a piece of iron, tempering it. , in the battle of frogs and mice, it is said that a mouse thrust a frog with a reed, and the frogged leaped over the water, dying ( baptizo ) the water with blood. Euripides uses the word as a ship which goes down in the water and does not come back to the surface. Lucian dreams that he has seen a huge bird shot with a mighty arrow, and as it flies high in the air, it dies ( baptizo) the earth with his blood. in Xenophon's Anabasis, we have the instance where the Greek soldiers placed ( baptizo) the points of their spears in a bowl of blood.
We come now to the usage of these words in the koine greek, giving examples from the papyri, the LXX, and the new testament.
In secular documents of the koine period, moulton and Milligan report the following uses of baptize.. A submerged boat, ceremonial ablutions, a person flooded or overwhelmed in calamities. they say that the word was used in its metaphorical sense even among the uneducated of people. . A biblical example of this is found in our Lords speaking of his passion as a baptism ( matt 10: 38), these scholars report the use of bapto as referring to fullers and dyers. the word is used of colored garments, and of wool to be dyed. the word baptisma is found in a question regarding a new baptism someone is reported to be preaching. This use of the noun is peculiar to the N.T. and to ecclesiastical writers.
In the LXX we have in leviticus 4: 6 the words, and the priest shall dip ( bapto) his finger in the blood, and sprinkle (prosraino) of the blood seven times before the Lord. Here the word Bapto is found juxtaposition to prostriano, a verb closely allied with prozrantizo, baptiso meaning to dip, the latter verb to sprinkle
In the NT we have the rich man asking that lazerus dip ( bapto) his finger in water and cool his tongue. ( luke 16: 24 ). In Heb 9: 10, Baptisma is translated washings and refers to the ceremonial ablusions of Judaism. In Mark 7: 4 Baptisma is used of the ceremonial washings of cups, pots, brazen vessels and tables, Baptisma is used in Matt 3: 7 and baptizo in matt 3: 16 and 1 cor 14 of the rite of water baptism. In Mark 10: 38 our Lord speaks of his sufferings on the cross as the baptisma with which he is to be baptizo.
In these examples we see various uses of the words bapto and baptizo we discover three distinct usages, a mechanical, a ceremonial and a metaphorical one.
The mechanical usage can be illustrated by the action of the smith dipping the hot iron in water, tempering it, or the dyer dipping the cloth in the dye for the purpose of dying it. these instances of the use of our greek word, give us the following defenition of the word in its mechanical usage. the word refers to the introduction or placing of a person or thing into a new environment or into union with something else, as to alter its condition or its relationship to its previous environment or condition. While the word, we found, had other uses, yet the one that predominated above the others was the mechanical one. Observe how perfectly the meaning is in accord with the usage of the word in rom 6: 3- 4. where the believing sinner is baptized into vital union with Jesus Christ. The believing sinner is introduced or placed in Christ, thus coming into union with him. By that action, he is taken out of his old environment and condition in which he had lived, the first adam, and is placed into a new environment and condition, the last Adam. By this action his condition is changed from that of a lost sinner with a totally depraved nature to that of a saint with a Devine nature. His relationship to the law of God is changed from that of a guilty sinner to that of a justified saint. All this is accomplish with the act of the Holy Spirit introducing, or placing us into vital union with Jesus Christ. No ceremony of water baptism ever did that! The entire context is supernatural in its character. The greek word here should not be transliterated but translated. The translation should read; " as many were introduced (placed ) into Christ jesus, into his death were introduced. therefore we were buried with him through the aforementioned introduction into his death. The same holds true for 1 cor 12: 13; which should be translated " for through the instrumentality of one spirit, we were all placed into one body." It is because we so often associate the english word "baptism" with the rite of water baptism, that we read that ceremony into Romans 6. A student is one of the writer's greek classes who is a greek himself, who learned to speak that language as his mother tongue and studied it in the schools of greece, stated during a class discussion that the greek reader would react to the Greek Text of Romans and the word baptizo as the writer has.
Doug Brents
Well-known member
Is that all that it is? A mental acceptance of their word? How intellectually dishonest of you.
No, I focus on those that God says LEAD TO or RESULT IN us receiving salvation: repentance, confession, AND baptism.
That is true, you must also have intellectual assent, repentance, and verbal and public confession of Jesus as Lord.
But that is just the beginning of your new life of salvation. You must then live the rest of your life as a changed individual growing closer to and more like your new Lord.
I will leave you to your blindness, and pray that God opens your eyes. This is not hard. But it is impossible for the blind to see.
Eternally-Grateful
Active member
Unlike you and I
God knows who has real faith and who does not. He knows our innermost feelins.
I am sorry you try to make God out to have himan flaws.
No. You focus on your works.. When you use the gosp0el. and then use the word I. Your pointing to self Not God
But your saved.. You have eternal life. Your now Gods children
And here you are doing what Paul warned against with the galatian's church. beginning in the spirit, but perfecting in the flesh (works)
I will leave you to your self righteousness.
And pray you repent before you meet God
Eternally-Grateful
Active member
I did not quote strongs my friend. I do not even use strongs. It is the weakest and most basic greek english help out there
Most of what I said was taken from the wuest article i quoted.. And Wuest quoted many ancient greek texts.
you can either read it. or you can continue in your false claim
The command to wash is irrelevant?
That claim smacks of desperation
BTW How were lepers cleansed in the Old Testament
Leviticus 14:1–32 (LEB) — 1 Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “This is the regulation of the person afflicted with a skin disease at the time of his cleansing. And he shall be brought to the priest, 3 and the priest shall go outside the camp, and the priest shall examine him, and if the skin disease’s infection is healed on the afflicted person, 4 then the priest shall command, and he shall take two living, clean birds and cedar wood and a crimson thread and hyssop for the one who presents himself for cleansing. 5 Then the priest shall command someone to slaughter one bird over fresh water in a clay vessel. 6 He must take the living bird and the cedar wood and the crimson thread and the hyssop, and he shall dip them and the living bird in the bird’s blood slaughtered over the fresh water. 7 And he shall spatter the blood seven times on the one who presents himself for cleansing from the infectious skin disease, and he shall declare him clean, and he shall send the living bird into the open field. 8 Then the one who presents himself for cleansing shall wash his garments, and he shall shave off all his hair, and he shall wash himself in the water; thus he shall be clean, and afterward he shall enter the camp, but he shall stay outside his tent for seven days. 9 And then on the seventh day he must shave off all his hair—he must shave his head and his beard and his eyebrows and all the rest of his hair—and he shall wash his garments, and he shall wash his body in the water; thus he shall be clean. 10 “And on the eighth day he must take two male lambs without defect and one ewe-lamb in its first year without defect and three-tenths of an ephah of finely milled flour mixed with oil as a grain offering and one log of oil. 11 And the priest who cleanses him shall present the man who presents himself for cleansing and these things before Yahweh at the entrance of the tent of assembly. 12 Then the priest shall take the one male lamb, and he shall present it as a guilt offering, and the log of oil, and he shall wave them as a wave offering before Yahweh. 13 And he shall slaughter the male lamb in the place where he slaughters the sin offering and the burnt offering in the sanctuary’s space, because as the sin offering belongs to the priest, so also the guilt offering—it is a most holy thing. 14 And the priest shall take some of the guilt offering’s blood, and the priest shall put it on the right ear’s lobe of the one who presents himself for cleansing and on his right hand’s thumb and on his right foot’s big toe. 15 And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and he shall pour it on his left palm; 16 and the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is on his left palm, and he shall spatter some of the oil with his finger seven times before Yahweh. 17 Then the priest shall put some of the remaining oil, which is on his palm, on the right ear’s lobe of the one to be cleansed and on his right hand’s thumb and on his right foot’s big toe, on top of the guilt offering’s blood. 18 And the remaining oil that is on the priest’s palm he shall put on the head of the one who presents himself for cleansing, and the priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh. 19 Thus the priest shall sacrifice the sin offering, and he shall make atonement for the one who presents himself for cleansing from his uncleanness, and afterward he shall slaughter the burnt offering. 20 Then the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the grain offering on the altar, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and so he shall be clean. 21 “But if he is poor and he cannot afford it, then he shall take one male lamb for a guilt offering as a wave offering to make atonement for himself and one-tenth of an ephah of finely milled flour mixed with oil for a grain offering, and a log of oil, 22 and two turtledoves or two young doves that he can afford, and one shall be a sin offering and the other a burnt offering. 23 And he shall bring them to the priest at the tent of assembly’s entrance before Yahweh on the eighth day for his cleansing. 24 And the priest shall take the male lamb for the guilt offering and the log of oil, and the priest shall wave them as a wave offering before Yahweh; 25 and he shall slaughter the male lamb of the guilt offering, and the priest shall take some of the guilt offering’s blood, and he shall put it on the right ear’s lobe of the one who presents himself for cleansing and on his right hand’s thumb and on his right foot’s big toe. 26 Then the priest shall pour out some of the oil on his own left palm, 27 and with his right finger the priest shall spatter some of the oil that is on his left palm seven times before Yahweh. 28 Then the priest shall put some of the oil that is on his palm on the right ear’s lobe of the one who presents himself for cleansing and on his right hand’s thumb and on his right foot’s big toe on the place of the guilt offering’s blood. 29 And the remaining oil that is on the priest’s palm he shall put on the head of the one who presents himself for cleansing to make atonement for him before Yahweh. 30 And he shall sacrifice one of the turtledoves or the young doves that he can afford, 31 even what he can afford, the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering in addition to the grain offering, and the priest shall make atonement for the one who presents himself for cleansing before Yahweh. 32 This is the regulation of the one on whom is an infectious skin disease who cannot afford the cost for his cleansing.”
Perhaps I mistook you for someone else
continuing ancient lexicons
There is another class of lexicons in the Greek, we must notice. Budaeus, 1519. H. Stephanus, 1572. Scapula, 1579. Pasow, Hedericus, Schrevellius, etc., being all abridgements directly from Stephanus, and he the same as Budaeus. These all give (1) for classic meaning, sink and overwhelm. (2) They do not define it by dip, the very thing our opponents all want. (3) Not one of them gives any other New Testament meaning than abluo, lavo, cleanse, wash. They all being mere abridgements, Budaeus and Stephanus alone deserve attention. They carefully separate the New Testament meaning from the classic meaning. While they carefully define it by words that cover our case, by a word that while it means to wash (lavo) is also defined besprinkle by every Latin lexicon we ever saw, yet they never give dip or immerse as a New Testament or Bible meaning at all. Hence, we have now over thirty authorities, from the stand-point of simple lexicography, with us, and against our opponent. This is the more valuable, when we remember that Budaeus and Stephanus were reared and wrote their lexicons under the supreme reign of dipping—when dipping was the law and almost universal practice.
Graves-Ditzler The great Caroltown debate
Doug Brents
Well-known member
Yet He still demands action. He knew Abraham would sacrifice Isaac, but He made him do it anyway before he confirmed his covenant with him. He knew that Naaman would dip in Jordan, but he made him do it anyway before he cured him. He knew Israel would march around Jericho, but He made them march anyway before He knocked the walls over.
Can you not see that if you don't do what He commands you don't get what He offers?
Jesus said if you confess Me... I will confess you..., BUT if you don't confess Me..., I won't confess you....
Does our confessing Him force/coerce/earn/demand that He confess us? NO!!!! But He would not be the God that He is if He reneged on His word.
Correct.
NOPE. Wrong again.
I already have God in my heart. And I do not fear death, for I will get to go HOME to be with God and Jesus forever. The only righteousness I have is that given me by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Doug Brents
Well-known member
Nope. There are dozen's of stories in the OT of different people being given different things to do in order to receive different gifts from God.
That was all things he had to do in order to be spiritually purified AFTER he had been cleansed physically. Remember what Jesus told the lepers who He cleansed (Matt 8:4).
Um wash does not mean to submerge and quickly emerge
Such is not even the meaning of immerse, which has in it no emersion
But not baptized into (eis) water
That does not appear in scripture
baptized with (en) water does
Um That was the law for cleansing from leprosy. Immersion was not mentioned there.
Nor in the Acts of baptism in Hebrews
Hebrews 9:9–22 (NRSV) — 9 This is a symbol of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, 10 but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right. 11 But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), 12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God! 15 For this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, because a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. 16 Where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
mailmandan
Well-known member
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 for everyone who 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. Unbelievers do not obey Him. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4)
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?”
Saved by grace through faith, not works, yet through bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics, here come the works anyway according to your false gospel.
Confessing that Jesus is Lord is a conviction of the heart, along with believing in our heart that God raised Him from the dead. It's not about simply reciting the words, "Jesus is Lord" as a work for salvation from a check list of steps but acknowledging and professing allegiance. The word of faith is in our mouth and heart together (Romans 10:8-10) and confession is a confirmation of faith that is by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) which is why we will be saved if we confess. There is divine influence or direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a person when confessing that Jesus is Lord. This confession is not just a simple acknowledgment that Jesus is the Lord (even the demons believe that) but is a deep personal conviction from the heart that Jesus is our Lord and Savior.
In the process of changing our mind and choosing to place our faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and becoming saved, (Acts 20:21) we come to agree with God that we are sinners who deserve death and cannot save ourselves. (Romans 3:23; 6:23) This does not mean that we will never sin again at all after that. (1 John 1:8-10) You redefine repentance as moral self-reformation and place it "after" faith/believing the gospel in your check list of steps which then turns repentance into a work for salvation. What a mess!
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. Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*
In Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, 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/signified in the outward ceremony of water baptism).
As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out that baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed, he washes away his sins in the same sense Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5)
Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html
Scripture does agree with me.
False. Accepting/receiving a free gift is not earning salvation. (Romans 2:8,9; 5:15-18; 6:23) How many free gifts have you accepted/received over the years at Christmas time that you worked for and earned? You continue to try and "shoehorn" your own personal definition of non-meritorious works "into" salvation through faith, not works, but the shoe does not fit.
Based on your false gospel, which is the result of bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics, you turn repentance, confession and baptism into works for salvation and don't even seem to realize it. The Israelites did not receive the gift of eternal life for marching around Jericho. Your faulty human logic misses the mark.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17) So, faith to you is intellectual assent "conjoined" works. What a mess! There is not faith that saves to begin with if there is no faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. (Ephesians 2:5-9) The action/good works FOLLOW having been saved through faith. (Ephesians 2:10) You still have the cart before the horse. According to your flawed logic, the cart may even be the horse.
False. Action is the fruit, and a good tree bears/produces good fruit, but a bad tree bears/produces bad fruit. (Matthew 7:17) You have the cart before the horse and remain under the delusion that works are the source of life in faith, which is like saying that fruit produced from a tree is the source of life for the tree. In James 2:26, the comparison of the human spirit and faith converge around their modes of operation. The spirit (Greek pneuma) may also be translated "breath." As a breathless body exhibits no indication of life, so fruitless faith exhibits no indication of life. The source of the life in faith is not works; rather, life in faith is the source of works. (Ephesians 2:5-10)
Water baptism is the picture and Spirit baptism is the reality.
I don't have an empty profession of belief in the gospel. I whole heartedly trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and my faith has been evidenced by works. (James 2:18) It's your lack of belief in the gospel that cannot result in salvation no matter many works that you conjure up through the flesh in a vain effort to obtain salvation by works.
Faith may be demonstrated by works but faith itself is not the works, and we are saved by faith, not works. You have a divided faith in Christ and works. Faith must trust 100% in Jesus Christ alone for salvation in order to be alive. After that we show our faith by our works, but we do not establish it.
Actually, I have repented, I believe the gospel, I have confessed Christ, and I have received water baptism. So, what's the problem? Oh, I'm not actually trusting in never sinning again as a work for salvation to save me and I'm not actually trusting in my confession of Christ to save me as a work for salvation and I'm not actually trusting in my water baptism to save me as a work for salvation. I'm trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation/faith in Christ.
Oh, the irony. Those who refuse to believe the gospel (Romans 1:16) have not obeyed Him (Romans 10:16; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4) and without faith it's impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), so unbelievers/make believers/nominal Christians/pseudo-Christians etc.. do not obey Him no matter how much "so called" obedience that they attempt to conjure up from an unregenerate heart in a vain effort to obtain salvation by works. The faith of works-salvationists is dead in the water!
Similar threads
