Is baptism Essential for salvation?

[kardiaoangelous]

Acts 10:48 is an honestly interpretable example of something said in the Authority of Christ. It is made by the only one of the Apostles who was given the Authority to use the Keys to the Kingdom, Peter. And so we do find the Greek preposition "en" being used to denote, "fixed in" the Authority of.

prosetacen te autouj baptisqhnai en tw onomati tou kuriou tote hrwthsan auton epimeinai hmeraj tinaj



in the name of the Lord en tw onomati tou kuriou

And actually what that verse says in direct order, is, "He {Peter} commanded but them in the name of the Lord, to be baptized. Then they requested him to remain upon days some."

We must interpret each scripture accurately as it is. That is the only way to be truly faithful and obedient to God by His word.

 

[zone]

the principle to come up with cessation seems to be inconsistent.
If its all in a intermediate time, to go from type to the real thing.
From sign gifts with the laying on of hands to not.
hmmm

As an ordinance im ok with water baptism, to argue the case, im not sure
why but it never seemed important enuf to me. Maybe it was something John said.

cessation of the signs gifts has nothing to do with baptism.

paul did baptize.

no, you don't need to be rebaptized.

what was it john said? which john? that made it not important?

 

[livingepistle]

commandmed by Peter aftereven when he saw the Holy Ghost had already fell on them, again if they had not got water babtized after the Holy Ghost had already immersed them, would not being water Babtized make void the receoption of the Holy Ghost, God would or was about to repent and take back what God has given?
I think not, now I would and have been water Babtized and have not gone against it beiing done, I am only dividing the word as it is said in scripture in context.
Do you agree that water Babtism of John and that the Babtism of the Holy Ghost are two types of Babtism?
So which Babtism saves?
Water Babtism starts one on a path of trying to do waht is right and finds out that he can't make it, trying toplease God and others in the process and not always, but one a lot of times are most miserable behind closed doors, not wanting anyone to see their fraities, They want to look good in front of others all the time, and hopefully find a friend that won't get on an intercom ansannounce one's Failures, you know cause I believe so well in front of others.
Thus being no born again life in that individual, only famking it as if they have it. Been there done that. So each here please have an ear and hear what the Spirit is saying to you personally
God does just love you, and now respond to that!!!!! Quit trying to initiate a good well bred life, we are the creation not the creator. God wants respondersto God's love, not initiators to create a love to one's liking
Love you all

The point made is with specificity to the Cornelius event. Peter commanded that they be baptized and that is what is written. No one can make an allegory or metaphor out of it. The scripture--it "needs no"--further explanation.

Brotherly love to you also.

 

[1still_waters]

and was rebuked by Paul having the desire to have man be pleased by waht he was doing
over God's soverignty, but Peter eventuallylearned truth and that is why he stated in Peter abut water Babtism only being a good conscious towards God, and unfortunately it is not used this way today
Gal 2 is where Paulrebuked Peter for his showmanship ways that Peter finally got rid of
Paul Confronts Peter

[SUP]11 [/SUP]But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. [SUP]12 [/SUP]When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. [SUP]13 [/SUP]As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?
[SUP]15 [/SUP]“You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. [SUP]16 [/SUP]Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”

You can't make that leap in reasoning.

Acts 10 makes it clear that Peter is aware and submissive to Gentiles being included too.

[SUP]28 [/SUP]Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. [SUP]29 [/SUP]Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?”

[SUP]34 [/SUP]Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.

Also it's questionable if the Peter that Paul rebukes in Galatians 2 is the Apostle Peter.

Notice some translations even translate it Cephas and not Peter.

[SUP]11 [/SUP]But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he[SUP][i][/SUP]stood condemned.

[SUP]14 [/SUP]But when I saw that they were not [SUP][l][/SUP]straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “

Yet when specifically talking about the apostle Peter...

[SUP]7 [/SUP]But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel [SUP][d][/SUP]to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been[SUP][e][/SUP]to the circumcised [SUP]8 [/SUP](for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship

 

[livingepistle]

ACTSis not Doctrinal, if it is Then no one is Holy Ghost saved unles hands are layed upon them. Just an example
To use ACTS as Doctinal is like hearing on the radio to believe and be saved. To be this history of one getting saved through the radio, then this the way the truth the life NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doctrinal epistles please!

My comments are made with brotherly love

It does not take the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost. The following scriptures proves this:

Acts 1:12Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. 13And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren...

2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God" (Acts 10:44-46).

These verses verify that they received the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands. The Bible says “it” sat upon each of them (individually)—men and women equally shared in the experience—and the Holy Ghost filled each person and in the case of Cornelius it "came upon" each of them, once again, no laying on of hands.

1 Timothy 4:14 shows that the “laying of hands” is not to be performed by just any layperson but someone that understands the ramifications of the action. Notice Peter when dealing with the sorcerer did not lay hands on him because his heart was not right toward God.

We as Christians should accept what the scriptures say and disavow any suppositions that we may have had up to the point of truth.

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding; Proverbs 4:7

 

[notuptome]

The point made is with specificity to the Cornelius event. Peter commanded that they be baptized and that is what is written. No one can make an allegory or metaphor out of it. The scripture--it "needs no"--further explanation.

Brotherly love to you also.

I love to disagree. The command of Peter for water baptism was not a command in the way we use the word command today. The 1611 Kings English is not telling us Peter ordered the newly saved Christians to be dunked in water. No Peter was bidding them virtually asking them to be water baptized. No one objected especially those from Jerusalem who were observing so they water baptized these new believers.
You cannot ignore that the scripture you are reading is a translation not the original language of the text. Baptize with water but do not ever make salvation conditional upon participation. If water could have any part in salvation then Christ need never to have left His glory in heaven.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Abiding]

cessation of the signs gifts has nothing to do with baptism.

paul did baptize.

no, you don't need to be rebaptized.

what was it john said? which john? that made it not important?

I didnt say unimportant. Acts 1:5 is where the "but" was.
which sorta went with what John the baptist said.

Ive given thought to being water baptized but never did.
My baby baptism never seems legit to me.
But i dont like controversy over it.

Paul mentioned that he had, but made it clear He was not called to do it.
But doesnt say much else. Yet seems rather odd or instructive to me what he did say.

 

[1still_waters]

I love to disagree. The command of Peter for water baptism was not a command in the way we use the word command today. The 1611 Kings English is not telling us Peter ordered the newly saved Christians to be dunked in water. No Peter was bidding them virtually asking them to be water baptized. No one objected especially those from Jerusalem who were observing so they water baptized these new believers.
You cannot ignore that the scripture you are reading is a translation not the original language of the text. Baptize with water but do not ever make salvation conditional upon participation. If water could have any part in salvation then Christ need never to have left His glory in heaven.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Whether the correct translation is command or not, it's clear Peter instructed/suggested/point to them to get water baptized.

You can't make that go away by appealing to an improperly translated word.

 

[kardiaoangelous]

Whether the correct translation is command or not, it's clear Peter instructed/suggested/point to them to get water baptized.

You can't make that go away by appealing to an improperly translated word.

Yes, that is true. The whole thing starts to get fudged up. We can see that as time progressed someone thought to change the wording to be as in the later manuscripts relied upon by the Stephanus Textus Receptus.

That leads me to wonder why as the oldest manuscripts pretty much agree that Peter did not use the word for "to be baptized" until after "in the name of the lord", or "in the name of the lord Jesus Christ".

But that does not even matter so much grammatically as we see that "He commanded" is inflected to the preposition showing that this is about Peter using the authority of the key given him to unlock entry into God's kingdom to the Gentiles. And that authority is about Peter's doing that alone. That authority ought not be construed to a meager application of commanding baptism when what was being commanded was entrance into the church by the Gentiles, a much greater event requiring such authority.

 

[livingepistle]

I have not found that in scripture after the death burial, and resurrection, please post scripture that says Christ himself commands us to be Babtized in water?

I am still waiting for a scripture that says we are "baptized with the Holy Spirit". Help me out Homwardbound or anyone else that believes this. I can find allot of baptized with water but nothing on Holy Spirit baptism.

 

[Abiding]

I am still waiting for a scripture that says we are "baptized with the Holy Spirit". Help me out Homwardbound or anyone else that believes this. I can find allot of baptized with water but nothing on Holy Spirit baptism.

Acts 1:5 11:16

 

[livingepistle]

Still, so you're saying in any other circumstance, that a water baptism is essential for salvation? I think it's incredibly important but I wouldn't go that far and I don't think the Bible teaches that it's required for salvation.

What is the Bible's definition of "Salvation" and how does one receive "salvation"? This is not a trick question but will you answer my question?

 

[livingepistle]

[/QUOTE]Originally Posted by livingepistle
I am still waiting for a scripture that says we are "baptized with the Holy Spirit". Help me out Homwardbound or anyone else that believes this. I can find allot of baptized with water but nothing on Holy Spirit baptism.[/QUOTE]

Acts 1:5 11:16

Thanks. Now please show me where the Bible says that water Baptism is not necessary if an individual is baptized with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Abiding]

Originally Posted by livingepistle
I am still waiting for a scripture that says we are "baptized with the Holy Spirit". Help me out Homwardbound or anyone else that believes this. I can find allot of baptized with water but nothing on Holy Spirit baptism.[/QUOTE]




Thanks. Now please show me where the Bible says that water Baptism is not necessary if an individual is baptized with the Holy Spirit.[/QUOTE]

did by answering a post make me your butler?
Or did u think i said anything about whether water baptism now not being necessary?
or were you talking to whoever?

 

[kardiaoangelous]

Acts 1:5 11:16

The reality of the true picture is explained if we pay attention to what the use of the plural pronoun means when John the Baptist spoke of that.


Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire."

Our perception is interfered with a bit due to how we today commonly use the pronoun "you" in sense of the singular number.

In the singular number it would mean that the individual is the "you". But in Greek the pronoun is plural number. John is not focusing the impact of what he says upon the individual, but upon the collective group. In the Greek the KJV's use of the word "you" is always the plural number focused at the collective group and "thee" for the singular focused at the individual person. There is much scripture improperly understood for failure to recognize this detail of the Greek grammar.

John basically said, "I indeed baptize the lost sheep of Israel in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to to bear: he shall baptize the lost sheep of the house of Israel in Holy Spirit and fire."

It is the church which is baptized as a whole unit blessed of God, one body in Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:1 "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted."

 

[kardiaoangelous]

Utilizing the proper understand of the plural Greek pronoun translated in the KJV as "ye":

Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water; but the body of the church shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Acts 11:15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but the body of the church shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

 

[kardiaoangelous]

It is important to note with regard to what Paul said at 1 Cor 10:1-6, that Jesus is the prophesied to come "prophet greater than Moses."

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

 

[kardiaoangelous]

When we give due heed to the usage of the plural Greek pronouns, which I spoke of much scripture not properly understood due to that failure, we a see new light on many things Paul said which harmonizes with what I have shared with all of you concerning the baptism of Holy Spirit being on the church as the unit of the body of Christ, God's temple under construction as seen at Ephesians 2: 18-22.

Ephesians 2:22 "In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

 

[kardiaoangelous]

And we see that Paul was grooming those who would be as teachers and shepherds of the body so that they not corrupt the Holy Spirit of the body of Christ due to cultivating new members to it with foolish wisdom.

1 Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward."

Expounding on the plural Greek pronouns we can thus see the next verses as speaking the following:

1 Corinthians 3:16 "Know the group of you not that the group of you joined as one in Christ's body are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in the group of you as that united body of Christ?"

1 Corinthians 3:17 "If any man of the group of you defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple the group of ye are, joined as one in Christ's body."

 

[jinx]

​spam!!!!! LOL