Saved by Water

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
Ye (/jiː/) is a second-person, plural, personal pronoun (nominative), spelled in Old English as "ge". In Middle English and early Early Modern English, it was used as a both informal second-person plural and formal honorific, to address a group of equals or superiors or a single superior.

In the origional KJV. Peter told them (everyone) to repent. and let every one of YOU be baptized, and YE shall recieve the gift..

the term repent and gift of the spirit was referenced by the plural words THEM and YE

Baptism is only commanded to the singular group YOU.

this fits the greek rendering of the chapter in which peter tell everyone (2nd person plural) to repent for the gift of the spirit. and then tells individuals (3rd person singular) to be baptized.
you - singular.

even in the greek.

also, if you continue to read. those who believed (repented) were baptized.

Not to get saved. but because they were saved.
YE is singular...YOU is plural.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
FreeGrace2 said:
You really need to GIVE UP on your Acts 2:38 mantra.

Acts 10-11 PROVES that the pattern of receivng the Holy Spirit is by faith. Period.

Let it go. You HAVE BEEN refuted. Accept the truth and reject the false doctrine you have been pushing.

This is just hilarious. :ROFL:

The pattern for receiving the Holy Spirit has been clearly presented in the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2 and 5.

You should accept the Word.
Your contentions concerning those scripture passages have been answered.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
So, just to be clear, you actually believe that those who read the NASB, ESV or any other version are going to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit "might want to say" to them.

That is pure absurdity. No offense.
No absurdity whatsoever.

I don't know about the ESV or the NASB...

I just know that there are certain Bibles that are based on texts that do not retain certain words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, even entire passages...and that those passages are in fact things that the Holy Spirit can use to speak to a person.

So, when those things are removed, the person reading that version of the Bible where those things are removed is being cheated out of what the Holy Spirit might want to say to him...and what the Holy Spirit would say to him if he were reading a Bible that includes the words that have been taken out of the Bible that he is reading.

You were even the one who brought up the fact that certain passages are not included in some Bibles.

I would not want to be someone who abides by such Bibles....because in abiding in those Bibles one would be agreeing with the action of the translators in taking away from God's word....and the consequences are severe (Revelation 22:18-19).

Whereas the consequences are visible and less severe if a person were to add to the word...and therefore, also, since those consequences have not appeared for the translators of the versions that retain certain things in the word, I conclude that these have not added to the word but that rather the translators of modern versions have taken away from it...and will receive the more severe consequences of doing that; while those consequences are also basically invisible except to God until the day of judgment.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
Gal 2:11 ESV
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."

Huh? this verse has NOTHING to do with loss of salvation.

The word "condemned" is:

kataginóskó: to blame
Original Word: καταγινώσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: kataginóskó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ag-in-o'-sko)
Definition: to blame
Usage: I condemn, blame.

Peter was wrong and Paul called him on it. That's all.
The ESV says that he stood condemned.

It doesn't matter what the greek says because we are considering the teaching of a singular version of the Bible. That version teaches against eternal security, bottom line.

Of course the kjv translates it correctly in saying that Peter "was to be blamed"
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
Regardless of your futile attempts to wear out Acts 2:38, it won't work.

The pattern is found in Cornelius and Gal 3:2,5.

The crowd in Acts 2 directly participated in Christ's crucifixion. Special circumstance.
Only futile because you have apparently hardened your heart to what Acts 2:38-39 has to say.

Please note that my position is not that a person cannot receive the Holy Spirit apart from baptism in Jesus' Name;

But, rather, that baptism in Jesus' Name is a condition for a promise in holy scripture...of remission of sins and the Holy Ghost...and that if you fulfill the condition of the promise, you will receive the promise.

I would point out also that, according to Acts 2:39, this conditional promise is given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

(see Romans 8:30).
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
You are free to believe whatever you want.
As are you...but if you disagree with me here you would not be seeing the scriptures correctly.

Which, of course, is your prerogative...it might only take you off course by 1 degree so it can't be too much harm, can it?
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
4,605
1,461
113
YE is singular...YOU is plural.
Thank you, But I will listen to the experts.

Paul did not tell individuals to repent so they could recieve the spirit. He told EVERYONE (it was a command)

He only told individuals (you) to be baptized.

Using your defenition not only is against the actual true meanings of the word. It makes what Peter said nonsensical
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
FreeGrace2 said:
All the "chapters and verses" didn't say what you have claimed. You only think they do.
let's make this easy on both of us. I don't want to wade back to find your list. But I'm sure you can at least cite the reference of your favorite one.

So, quote that fav verse and I will show you what I mean.

If I go back and pick one, and show what it really says, you'll probably come back with, "well, that wasn't the clearest one". So something like that.

So, if you pick out what you think is the clearest, then there will be no question about it.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
FreeGrace2 said:
So, just to be clear, you actually believe that those who read the NASB, ESV or any other version are going to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit "might want to say" to them.

That is pure absurdity. No offense.
No absurdity whatsoever.
Of course your statement was absurd.

I don't know about the ESV or the NASB...
Your blanket comment covers ALL other translations, whether you were aware of that or not.

I just know that there are certain Bibles that are based on texts that do not retain certain words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, even entire passages...and that those passages are in fact things that the Holy Spirit can use to speak to a person.
Are you not aware that there are SEVERAL groupings of manuscripts that contain differences?

The grouping of manuscripts used to translate the KJV were dated to the 10th Century. That means about 900 years of scribes coping copies of copies for 900 years.

There are other groupings of manuscripts that are dated MUCH earlier than that. Back to the 2nd Century, so there is a LOT LESS copying of copies to translate.

iow, the closer the manuscript is to the original autograph, the less mistakes will be made.

So, when those things are removed, the person reading that version of the Bible where those things are removed is being cheated out of what the Holy Spirit might want to say to him...and what the Holy Spirit would say to him if he were reading a Bible that includes the words that have been taken out of the Bible that he is reading.
That's why it is an error to stick with just one version. Biblehub.com will give you 28 English translations, plus an interlinear and lexicon to understand the words and what they mean.

You were even the one who brought up the fact that certain passages are not included in some Bibles.
Right. I was referring to translations what were done from much later copies, rather than earlier copies. The versions that don't have some passages were written EARLIER, which shows that those passages were ADDED LATER.

That's the problem with the KJV.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
The ESV says that he stood condemned.
Do you not understand any of this:

The word "condemned" is:

kataginóskó: to blame
Original Word: καταγινώσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: kataginóskó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ag-in-o'-sko)
Definition: to blame
Usage: I condemn, blame.

This is from Strong's. It explains the Greek word.

It doesn't matter what the greek says because we are considering the teaching of a singular version of the Bible.
Don't be ridiculous. It is the Greek that is where the original autograph comes from. So the Greek MATTER WAY MORE than any translation into other languages.

That version teaches against eternal security, bottom line.
Can you support this with the best verse that teaches against eternal security?

Of course the kjv translates it correctly in saying that Peter "was to be blamed"
Well, there you go.

That is why the Greek words ARE VERY important.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Only futile because you have apparently hardened your heart to what Acts 2:38-39 has to say.
Don't be ridiculous. I explained why Peter told them that.

But, the real question is why you seem to have HARDENED your own heart against the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2,5.

Please note that my position is not that a person cannot receive the Holy Spirit apart from baptism in Jesus' Name;

But, rather, that baptism in Jesus' Name is a condition for a promise in holy scripture...of remission of sins and the Holy Ghost...and that if you fulfill the condition of the promise, you will receive the promise.

I would point out also that, according to Acts 2:39, this conditional promise is given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

(see Romans 8:30).
The pattern that is God's plan for TODAY is found in the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2,5.

That's what I'm sticking with.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Thank you, But I will listen to the experts.

Paul did not tell individuals to repent so they could recieve the spirit. He told EVERYONE (it was a command)

He only told individuals (you) to be baptized.

Using your defenition not only is against the actual true meanings of the word. It makes what Peter said nonsensical
jbf also said:
It doesn't matter what the greek says because we are considering the teaching of a singular version of the Bible.
 

KelbyofGod

Senior Member
Oct 8, 2017
1,881
717
113
the second statement does not say H2O immersion is prequisite for receiving the Spirit.
it doesn't comment on what order anything has to take place; it's just saying both are necessary - you need to eat, and you need to drink. you don't have to do one before the other. you don't have to do both at the same time.


with H2O baptism and receiving the Spirit it's the same: they may be concurrent, or one may come before the other - even with a great space of time between, as Wansvic explained. i agree with all of the things he put in post #2,602 except... i don't think John 3 is necessarily talking about water baptism.

i do not believe in baptismal regeneration, i.e. i do not believe that our sins are forgiven at baptism. in that respect Wansvic & i disagree - i also believe that we are saved independent of water baptism; if a man was saved in the desert or on the moon or as an invalid with no one to dip him in water, i do not believe his belief or repentance is negated by failing to be baptized. a man saved without anyone to baptize him or without any access to water in which to be baptized, that man is still saved. by grace through faith, apart from works.

i also believe baptism is commanded of us and that it is 'the answer of a good conscience toward God' which conscience we have through repentance and belief. i would never recommend anyone not be baptized; i would urge anyone who believes to be baptized. knowing you must be baptized, being able to be baptized, and still refusing to be baptized is wickedness. it's disobedience. but it's not baptism in H2O by human hands that saves, cleanses us from sin, or seals us in His body.

you could say i'm more or less anabaptist in my thinking.

((just so you know where i am on the issue))

so even tho i may not be totally in agreement with @Wansvic's thinking on the matter of baptism, i don't think he's contradicting himself - not like you are saying he is.
and i am more in agreement with him now that i see he accepts the proof of Acts 11, that the Spirit doesn't have to be given with the act of water baptism. that's a point that many people won't conceded, so i very much love him because he does
I just gained a lot of respect for you by reading this and your prior post. (Not because of the support to wansvic but of your use of discernment and clear explanation of exactly where and why you agree, and where and why you disagree, with wansvic)

Love in Jesus,
Kelby
 

KelbyofGod

Senior Member
Oct 8, 2017
1,881
717
113
the second statement does not say H2O immersion is prequisite for receiving the Spirit.
it doesn't comment on what order anything has to take place; it's just saying both are necessary - you need to eat, and you need to drink. you don't have to do one before the other. you don't have to do both at the same time.


with H2O baptism and receiving the Spirit it's the same: they may be concurrent, or one may come before the other - even with a great space of time between, as Wansvic explained. i agree with all of the things he put in post #2,602 except... i don't think John 3 is necessarily talking about water baptism.
Very well said.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
Thank you, But I will listen to the experts.

Paul did not tell individuals to repent so they could recieve the spirit. He told EVERYONE (it was a command)

He only told individuals (you) to be baptized.

Using your definition not only is against the actual true meanings of the word. It makes what Peter said nonsensical
He said every one of you should be baptized. So, even if you, is singular, the context bears out that he was telling that whole group of people to be baptized.

And yes, each person is called individually to repent.

Isa 51:1, Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isa 51:2, Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
FreeGrace2 said:
All the "chapters and verses" didn't say what you have claimed. You only think they do.

let's make this easy on both of us. I don't want to wade back to find your list. But I'm sure you can at least cite the reference of your favorite one.

So, quote that fav verse and I will show you what I mean.

If I go back and pick one, and show what it really says, you'll probably come back with, "well, that wasn't the clearest one". So something like that.

So, if you pick out what you think is the clearest, then there will be no question about it.
Example.

I bring up Acts 2:38 and say that it is a conditional promise of the Holy Ghost to all who fulfill the condition of the promise. But you say, no, that promise is only for the people who were there present, who actually witnessed the miracles of Jesus. But you have no biblical basisi for saying that; while I have a biblical basis (in Acts 2:39) for saying that that promise was for those there present, and their children, and to all that were than afar off.

But you want to insist, without any biblical basis, that the promise was only to the people there present.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
FreeGrace2 said:
So, just to be clear, you actually believe that those who read the NASB, ESV or any other version are going to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit "might want to say" to them.

That is pure absurdity. No offense.

Of course your statement was absurd.


Your blanket comment covers ALL other translations, whether you were aware of that or not.


Are you not aware that there are SEVERAL groupings of manuscripts that contain differences?

The grouping of manuscripts used to translate the KJV were dated to the 10th Century. That means about 900 years of scribes coping copies of copies for 900 years.

There are other groupings of manuscripts that are dated MUCH earlier than that. Back to the 2nd Century, so there is a LOT LESS copying of copies to translate.

iow, the closer the manuscript is to the original autograph, the less mistakes will be made.


That's why it is an error to stick with just one version. Biblehub.com will give you 28 English translations, plus an interlinear and lexicon to understand the words and what they mean.


Right. I was referring to translations what were done from much later copies, rather than earlier copies. The versions that don't have some passages were written EARLIER, which shows that those passages were ADDED LATER.

That's the problem with the KJV.
So, you're saying that the people who copied the manuscripts in the 1th century ADDED to the word.

Why then, were not the plagues of the book of Revelation added to them (Revelation 22:18-19)?

But if modern translators took away from the word, the consequences are invisible except before God until the day of judgment.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
jbf also said:
It doesn't matter what the greek says because we are considering the teaching of a singular version of the Bible.
Yes, and that has to do with the fact that the ESV in particular says that Peter stood condemned. So, if you are going to read your ESV in Engllish, and not refer back to the Greek, you would come up with a faulty theology.

Whereas with the kjv you do not have to refer back to the original Greek in order to come up with a c orrect theology.