Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Regeneration Refuted

  • 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.

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#81
1 Peter does not say that water baptism saves.

eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)

water baptism is a just figure, a picture, of salvation. Water baptism does not save. Water baptism is a human work, and human works do not save.

Moreover, it is reiterated over & over how the only MUST I DO to be saved is believe, exercise faith in the Lord Jesus.

He is the Savior. There is not room in the universe for more than one Savior. He is not just a mere chance-giver, but a Savior.

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for
He shall save His people from their sins.
 
K

Kaycie

Guest
#82
As far as the Church of Christ goes...

The name "Campbelite" was rejected because they were followers of Christ. Those who did not belong to this group labeled them after Alexander Campbell. The Church of Christ did not start with him- he set out to restore false religions back to the church Christ started- The Church of Christ- also called The Way in the new testament. (Romans 16:16 & Acts 9:2). Comparing the one true church of the bible (Ephesians 4:5) and correcting others where it don't match the bible is what all Christians should be doing.

As far as baptism goes...

Being saved by believing (faith) is not biblical. Even Demons believe. Are they saved? Read James 2:19. There is only one thing that saves us from sin and that is Christ's blood- which we come in contact with during baptism. Romans 6:3 says that baptisim is how we get INTO Christ. And 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves you. But what does John 3:16 say? "...that whosoever believes in Him SHOULD not perish. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God you SHOULD get baptized and be saved. Look at Paul's conversion. Did fasting save him? No. Did believing save him? No. Did prayer save him? No. Paul did all these things before Ananias told him what he must do to be saved in Acts 22:16.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,498
13,436
113
58
#83
If you say this about baptism, you also have to say this about repentance, confession and belief.
Not true. Repentance precedes saving belief in Christ and confession and belief are not two separate steps to salvation but are chronologically together. The word of faith is in our mouth and in our heart, together. Water baptism follows. If we are not saved until we are water baptized, then salvation through belief/faith/believes unto righteousness/confession is made unto salvation is misleading. According to your argument, confession would not be made unto salvation, but unto baptism that is then done unto salvation but that is certainly NOT what Paul said in Romans 10:9,10.

You are confusing the biblical picture of belief with a simple mental ascension to a fact. Biblical belief is not merely accepting an intellectual fact or truth.
No I'm not. Simply believing that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ "happened" is simple mental ascension to that fact. But trusting exclusively in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the all sufficient means of my salvation goes beyond simple mental ascension to that fact. This is the belief that saves (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 1:16). In regards to faith, those in the churches of Christ often fail to understand that there is a deeper, more substantive aspect of faith which is believing on Jesus Christ for eternal life, and most cannot distinguish between mere intellectual belief or assent from a personal faith that is trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. They will cite that “even the devils believe” (from James 2:19) in their sermons and will contend that even the "faith of devils" is the same as any other faith except that the faith of devils lacks any moral or religious good works. They cannot grasp this DEEPER faith which trusts exclusively in Christ for salvation.

Scripture always presents true belief as a conduct of life. In other words, belief is a compossition of all of our thought speech and behavior.
The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ). Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The Greek words for "pistis" and "pisteuo" are two forms of the same word. "Pistis" is the noun form, "pisteuo" is the verb form. Nothing in the root meaning of either word carries any concept of works. If you believe in Christ for salvation, then you are trusting exclusively in Him to save you, not in works. This belief will to one degree or the other result in actions appropriate to the belief - but the actions are NOT INHERENT in the belief. Faith is the ROOT and good works are the FRUIT of salvation.

Again, you are missing the point. These are two separat actions that are part of a single process.
I understand that confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in our heart (not just in our head) that God raised Him from the dead are not two separate steps to salvation but are chronologically together. Water baptism FOLLOWS AFTER "believes unto righteousness/confession made unto salvation." 1 Corinthians 12:3 - Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except BY the Holy Spirit. 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, without reservation, that Jesus is that person's Lord and Savior. So simply believing in our head (and not in our heart) that God raised Him from the dead does not result in righteousness and simply reciting the words "Jesus is Lord" not by the Holy Spirit from a check list of steps is not made unto salvation.

Peter is not saying that our baptism is not water baptism. What he is trying to get you to see is that the PURPOSE of baptism in water is not for the purpose of removing the dirt from your body. He is saying that water baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience.
Right after Peter says that baptism now saves you, *(conscious that his statement is liable to be misunderstood), Peter explains himself: Negatively, baptism does not save because water is applied to the body: “not the removal of the filth of the flesh.” Water can only cleanse the flesh outwardly; it does not cleanse the heart from sin. Positively, baptism saves because it follows a personal response to God as indicated by the phrase “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” It is that aspect of baptism (what is signified, “the answer of a good conscience toward God”) rather than the external rite (the sign, the application of water) that saves. The genitive in the Greek text is correctly translated as the pledge of a good conscience, not for a good conscience. It is a pledge made from a good conscience. Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. The symbol and the reality are so closely related that the symbol is sometimes used to refer to the reality and that seems to be what confuses many people. A FLOOD OF CONFUSION.

Then why can you not say this about baptism????
Baptism is not another aspect of faith. You don't baptize unbelievers in order to make them believers. We place our faith exclusively in Christ for salvation (at least genuine believers do) BEFORE we get water baptized. If someone drops dead of a heart attack before getting water baptized after they place their faith in Christ for salvation, they still have faith. The lack of water baptism did not change that. They also still have hope.

So is belief, repentance, confession, and baptism.
Is that what Paul said Ephesians 2:8? For by grace, you have been saved through baptism? Or through faith? Does faith precede baptism? Yes. Repentance "change of mind" precedes belief in Christ for salvation and confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord is chronologically together with believing in our heart that God raised Him from the dead. Water baptism follows afterward. Faith is the instrumental means by which we receive salvation and salvation is signified, yet not procured in the waters of baptism.

Again, you must understand what belief is as it is present in scripture, not as a mere mental acceptance of a fact or a truth.
Saving belief in Christ is more than mere mental assent to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving belief trusts exclusively in Christ's finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of our salvation. You seem to understand that this belief is no different than the belief of devils and the only difference is you add your works.

I agree 100%
So you understand that not everyone who gets water baptized in church is a genuine believer.

We have some agreements. Praise God! :)

It was not left out as a simple act of omission. I only left it out because there is no passage that actually says that "repentance saves you" as is represented by the other examples. This of course does not minimize its partnership in the salvation process.
Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.. of course the new direction of this change of mind in repentance is faith in Christ for salvation. That's why sins will be blotted out. That is in perfect harmony with ..whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43). Something that I find interesting. In Luke 13:3, Jesus said that unless we repent we will perish. In John 3:18, Jesus said whoever does not believe is condemned already. Yet NOWHERE in the Bible do we find "whoever is not water baptized will not be saved."
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,622
282
83
#84
Acts 2:38 is a clear scripture for the crucial importance of water baptism. For what God does and promises in baptism. One does not have to hold campbellite or UPC convictions in all regarding baptism. But the way water baptism has been downplayed by much of western christianity at large, as being a mere symbol, is definitely not scriptural. Baptism has now the same significance as circumcision had in the Old Covenant. Its a mayor event in the lives of all christians.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,498
13,436
113
58
#85
You are still misrepresenting this text. The text says. "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." He does NOT say "upon this house or upon Cornelius" but upon the Gentiles. In other words, upon ALL Gentiles. This was accomplished in Acts 2 when the H.S. was "poured out upon ALL mankind."
No, you are twisting these scriptures to avoid the truth (because it's not in harmony with your interpretation of Acts 2:38) that these Gentiles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were saved BEFORE water baptism. Did ALL mankind speak in tongues in Acts 2 and 10? No. Did ALL mankind receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45? No.

There is a reason Paul used the lame terminology to describe this event. The fact that the H.S. "fell on them" meaning those present and not on ALL Gentiles, resulting in their speaking in tongues, served as poof of what Peter said. "Fell on" and "poured out" have far different meaning and different implications.
False. The Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. Not ALL mankind. The gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles (these Gentiles) not ALL mankind. They (these Gentiles) spoke in tongues and magnified God, not ALL mankind. The spiritual gift of tongues is ONLY for the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) not lost unbelievers. Don't you dare bring up the ludicrous argument about Balaam's donkey! Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit (these Gentiles, not ALL mankind) just as we have? See how your argument falls short?

No, what Peter was confirming was that the Gentiles had received the H.S. just as the Jews had when the H.S. was poured out on all mankind. This fact meant that these could not be forbidden to be baptized.
Was ALL mankind filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) and spoke in tongues? (Acts 2:4; 10:46) Did ALL mankind receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:45). Did ALL mankind receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ? (Acts 11:17). Did ALL mankind believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved? (Acts 16:31). Did ALL mankind believe in Him and receive remission of sins? (Acts 10:43). Did God grant to ALL mankind repentance unto life? (Acts 11:18). Your argument falls short and is a desperate attempt to get around the truth in order to accommodate your theology.

Paul tells us in Eph. 4:5 that there is only "one baptism."
Paul is not saying that there is only one baptism period. That would be in contradiction to scripture. Hebrews 6:2 says baptisms "plural." There are three baptisms mentioned in Matthew 3:11. 1. Water 2. Spirit 3. Fire. Yet there is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is Spirit baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.. Notice the word "one" in Ephesians 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. That fits perfectly. When does this happen? In Ephesians 1:13 - In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation - having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise. This does not mean that water baptism is no longer performed today or that there is only one baptism that has ever existed period.

Since there is only one baptism, why did the apostles continue to baptize in water if he meant that the one baptism was H.S. baptism?
Paul did not mean that there is only one baptism that has ever existed. Is there only one baptism in baptisms "plural" in Hebrews 6:2? Is there only one baptism mentioned in Matthew 3:11? If water baptism is the only baptism, then how are we ALL (believers) baptized by one Spirit into one body? Plain ordinary H20 has no power to accomplish this.

Then why can you not see in those conversion example where only one element, such as belief is mention ALL the others, including baptism are implied. If not, why not?
Because belief is not baptism and belief is not dependent on baptism and belief precedes baptism and we are saved when we believe (John 3:16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16 etc..). That's why. Yet if we don't repent, then we won't believe and be saved. Matthew 21:32 - For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. Mark 1:15 - Repent and believe the gospel. Acts 20:21 - testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. ​The church of Christ reverses the order of repentance and belief/faith in Christ in receiving salvation.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,498
13,436
113
58
#86
Acts 2:38 is a clear scripture for the crucial importance of water baptism. For what God does and promises in baptism. One does not have to hold campbellite or UPC convictions in all regarding baptism. But the way water baptism has been downplayed by much of western christianity at large, as being a mere symbol, is definitely not scriptural. Baptism has now the same significance as circumcision had in the Old Covenant. Its a mayor event in the lives of all christians.
In Colossians 2:12, the context shows that baptism is presented as the New Testament counterpart of circumcision in the Old Testament. They are presented in a careful parallel to each other. Romans 2:28-29 shows clearly that it is not physical circumcision "made with hands" but spiritual circumcision which makes one truly a Jew and one of Abraham's children. Since baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision in the Old Testament, we may therefore understand Romans 2:28-29 to have the same meaning in relation to baptism that it has in relation to circumcision: For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God.

Circumcision was not necessary for salvation in the Old Testament, for Abraham was saved before he was circumcised (Genesis 15:6). Romans 4:9 - Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was is accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith (just like baptism) which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness may be imputed to them also.

Do you agree? You said that baptism has now the same significance as circumcision had in the Old Covenant.

One does not have to hold campbellite or UPC convictions in all regarding baptism.
True, also Roman Catholics and Mormons believe that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation as well. What do ALL of these groups have in common? They ALL teach that salvation is based on works.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#87
I've also always found it interesting Robertson had no problem understanding "eis" in Matt 26:28 means "for, yet in Acts 2:38, that uses the same "remission of sins" phrase as Mt 26:28, Robertson is not so sure what "eis" means, if it means "for" or "because". So Robertson was willing to sacrifice Greek scholarship for his personal theological bias.
Although "for" in English does indeed have a casual usage suggesting "because," the word "eis" does not. Thus the translation of "eis" into "for" is rather unfortunate. "eis" never, never, never means "because of". "eis" ALWAYS points forward, NEVER backward.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#88
Although "for" in English does indeed have a casual usage suggesting "because," the word "eis" does not. Thus the translation of "eis" into "for" is rather unfortunate. "eis" never, never, never means "because of". "eis" ALWAYS points forward, NEVER backward.
According to My theological dictionary by Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley......

Section D eis in a logical connection....eis states a reason, e.g.. IN VIEW OF
Section E eis denotes relationship as such in a neutral sense, "with reference to"

And no matter what anyone says, states or proves...people who trust into water will always trust into water over blood and the faith of Christ it seems.....And again, God is not the author of confusion.......

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in HIM (and is baptized) should not perish, but IS HAVING everlasting life......

He that believeth on him (and is baptized) is NOT condemned...

He that believeth on the SON (and is baptized) HATH (PRESENT TENSE) everlasting life

Being justified freely by his grace (and baptism) dia the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Therefore being justified by FAITH (and baptism), we have PEACE with God dia our Lord Jesus Christ

For the wages of sin is death; but the GIFT of GOD is ETERNAL LIFE dia Jesus Christ our LORD (and baptism)

For by grace are ye saved dia FAITH (and baptism); and that not of YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of GOD: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy (and baptism) he saved us (past tense)by the WASHING of REGENERATION, and RENEWING of the HOLY SPIRIT (NOT WATER); Which he shed ABUNDANTLY dia JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR.

My bible does not teach the bolded above and to add water is contrary to the truth.......My bible teaches IN CHRIST, WITH CHRIST and THROUGH CHRIST

Was JESUS already the the SON of GOD by BIRTH (HOLY SPIRIT overshadowing Mary) before his WATER IMMERSION?

Was JESUS IDENTIFIED as THE SON OF GOD by IMMERSION?

The language is clear.....................!

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that HOLY THING which shall be BORN of thee SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD!

Being a son is BY BIRTH and the WATER TESTIFIES to the present reality of being A SON!
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#89
Although "for" in English does indeed have a casual usage suggesting "because," the word "eis" does not. Thus the translation of "eis" into "for" is rather unfortunate. "eis" never, never, never means "because of". "eis" ALWAYS points forward, NEVER backward.

The problem they will have in changing the meaning of Greek words such as "eis" is it will render the following verses in a different way:

Mt 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many BECAUSE OF the remission of sins."

1 Tm 1;16 "
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him BECAUSE OF life everlasting."

Changing the meaning of "eis" to "because" creates at least two biblical impossibilities, 1) Christ shed His blood BECAUSE sins have ALREADY been remitted and 2) men believe on Christ BECAUSE they ALREADY have life everlasting.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#90
According to My theological dictionary by Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley......

Section D eis in a logical connection....eis states a reason, e.g.. IN VIEW OF
Section E eis denotes relationship as such in a neutral sense, "with reference to"
There is no Greek scholar of any repute who will to go out on a limb to defend this. eis always only points forward "in view toward" with reference toward". What Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley are attempting to do is force the casual meaning of our word "for" onto eis and it simply not work.

And no matter what anyone says, states or proves...people who trust into water will always trust into water over blood and the faith of Christ it seems.....And again, God is not the author of confusion.......
That is quite a judgmental assumption since Paul describes baptism as the place where we come into contact with the death of Christ. This is where we come into contact with the blood.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in HIM (and is baptized) should not perish, but IS HAVING everlasting life......

He that believeth on him (and is baptized) is NOT condemned...

He that believeth on the SON (and is baptized) HATH (PRESENT TENSE) everlasting life

Being justified freely by his grace (and baptism) dia the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Therefore being justified by FAITH (and baptism), we have PEACE with God dia our Lord Jesus Christ

For the wages of sin is death; but the GIFT of GOD is ETERNAL LIFE dia Jesus Christ our LORD (and baptism)

For by grace are ye saved dia FAITH (and baptism); and that not of YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of GOD: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy (and baptism) he saved us (past tense)by the WASHING of REGENERATION, and RENEWING of the HOLY SPIRIT (NOT WATER); Which he shed ABUNDANTLY dia JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR.

My bible does not teach the bolded above and to add water is contrary to the truth.......My bible teaches IN CHRIST, WITH CHRIST and THROUGH CHRIST

Was JESUS already the the SON of GOD by BIRTH (HOLY SPIRIT overshadowing Mary) before his WATER IMMERSION?

Was JESUS IDENTIFIED as THE SON OF GOD by IMMERSION?

The language is clear.....................!

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that HOLY THING which shall be BORN of thee SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD!

Being a son is BY BIRTH and the WATER TESTIFIES to the present reality of being A SON!
If this is your contention then you will also have to disavow repentance, hope, and confession as having any place in one's salvation since the passages you quoted do not mention them either. You are accepting one statement of scripture to the exclusion of all the others.
 
Last edited:
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#91
There is no Greek scholar of any repute who will to go out on a limb to defend this. eis always only points forward "in view toward" with reference toward". What Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley are attempting to do is force the casual meaning of our word "for" onto eis and it simply not work.


That is quite a judgmental assumption since Paul describes baptism as the place where we come into contact with the death of Christ. This is where we come into contact with the blood.


If this is your contention then you will also have to disavow repentance, hope, and confession as having any place in one's salvation since the passages you quoted do not mention them either. You are accepting one statement of scripture to the exclusion of all the others.
No I am not as I am looking at all scriptures in context and baptism is not part of salvation, but rather the evidence of as it points to what has taken place by the act of faith....like I said...believers in water salvation will continue to trust into their works and their water...which leads to hell period. It is called a gospel of a different kind as it ADDS something that has not be added by God....I will again reference the 8 scriptures in context that clearly teaches salvation VOID OF WATER...!

And answer the last two questions in context...Jesus a son by BIRTH or WATER?

Was JESUS already the SON of GOD by BIRTH (HOLY SPIRIT overshadowing Mary) before his WATER IMMERSION?

Was JESUS IDENTIFIED as THE SON OF GOD by IMMERSION?



For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but IS HAVING everlasting life......

He that believeth on him is NOT condemned...

He that believeth on the SON HATH (PRESENT TENSE) everlasting life

Being justified freely by his grace dia the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Therefore being justified by FAITH we have PEACE with God dia our Lord Jesus Christ

For the wages of sin is death; but the GIFT of GOD is ETERNAL LIFE dia Jesus Christ our LORD

For by grace are ye saved dia FAITH ; and that not of YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of GOD: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us (past tense)by the WASHING of REGENERATION, and RENEWING of the HOLY SPIRIT (NOT WATER); Which he shed ABUNDANTLY dia JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR.
 
Last edited:

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#92
No I am not as I am looking at all scriptures in context and baptism is not part of salvation, but rather the evidence of as it points to what has taken place by the act of faith....like I said...believers in water salvation will continue to trust into their works and their water...which leads to hell period. It is called a gospel of a different kind as it ADDS something that has not be added by God....I will again reference the 8 scriptures in context that clearly teaches salvation VOID OF WATER...!

And answer the last two questions in context...Jesus a son by BIRTH or WATER?

Was JESUS already the SON of GOD by BIRTH (HOLY SPIRIT overshadowing Mary) before his WATER IMMERSION?

Was JESUS IDENTIFIED as THE SON OF GOD by IMMERSION?



For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but IS HAVING everlasting life......

He that believeth on him is NOT condemned...

He that believeth on the SON HATH (PRESENT TENSE) everlasting life

Being justified freely by his grace dia the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Therefore being justified by FAITH we have PEACE with God dia our Lord Jesus Christ

For the wages of sin is death; but the GIFT of GOD is ETERNAL LIFE dia Jesus Christ our LORD

For by grace are ye saved dia FAITH ; and that not of YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of GOD: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us (past tense)by the WASHING of REGENERATION, and RENEWING of the HOLY SPIRIT (NOT WATER); Which he shed ABUNDANTLY dia JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR.
And, "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved."
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,498
13,436
113
58
#93
And, "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved."
Mark 16:16 doesn't end with a period here and don't leave out the rest of the verse. ..but he who does not believe shall be condemned. Let's try this again. He that believes and is baptized shall 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 shall be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief.

*If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation (dipped or condemned), then Jesus surely would have mentioned it in the following verses (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). But as we can clearly see, what is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#94
Mark 16:16 doesn't end with a period here and don't leave out the rest of the verse. ..but he who does not believe shall be condemned. Let's try this again. He that believes and is baptized shall 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 shall be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief.

*If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation (dipped or condemned), then Jesus surely would have mentioned it in the following verses (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). But as we can clearly see, what is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
A little common sense will go along way. If a person does not believe then obviously he will not be baptized. This person is condemned. If that person desires to be saved Jesus links two conditions to this - belief and baptism.
 
P

prodigal

Guest
#95
magic water, christian mystism

bottle-1.5lit.jpg


saved by works or grace.... you decide
 

Attachments

Last edited:

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,498
13,436
113
58
#96
A little common sense will go along way. If a person does not believe then obviously he will not be baptized. This person is condemned.
There are plenty of people who do not believe, yet get water baptized anyway in various churches that teach a different gospel. Now these people may believe "mental assent" in the existence and the historical facts about Christ, but they don't truly believe/trust exclusively in Christ for salvation. They believe/trust in "water and works" for salvation. Wrong kind of belief/faith.

If that person desires to be saved Jesus links two conditions to this - belief and baptism.
Since Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned," then Jesus does not link two conditions to being saved here. Where does Jesus link two conditions - believe and baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#97
There are plenty of people who do not believe, yet get water baptized anyway in various churches that teach a different gospel. Now these people may believe "mental assent" in the existence and the historical facts about Christ, but they don't truly believe/trust exclusively in Christ for salvation. They believe/trust in "water and works" for salvation. Wrong kind of belief/faith.
Then these people are not saved.

Since Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned," then Jesus does not link two conditions to being saved here. Where does Jesus link two conditions - believe and baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26?
I think you know this not syntactically correct. Jesus was very clear on the matter. Those who do not believe are lost. If they wish to be saved, Jesus employs two conditions - belief and baptism.

"He that believes not shall be condemned."
I know you believe these words to be true but,
"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved..." Do you believe these words to be true or untrue?
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,498
13,436
113
58
#98
Then these people are not saved.
Because they did not truly believe, regardless of whether or not they were water baptized.

I think you know this not syntactically correct. Jesus was very clear on the matter. Those who do not believe are lost. If they wish to be saved, Jesus employs two conditions - belief and baptism.
Jesus didn't employ two conditions in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 and he didn't say that whoever is not baptized will be condemned in Mark 16:16, so your argument falls short.

"He that believes not shall be condemned." I know you believe these words to be true but,
Amen!

"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved..." Do you believe these words to be true or untrue?
If he who believes will be saved (John 3:18) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well, so I believe those words. What do you believe about he who believes and is unable to get baptized prior to death? Saved or condemned?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#99
Jesus didn't employ two conditions in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 and he didn't say that whoever is not baptized will be condemned in Mark 16:16, so your argument falls short.
But he did employ them here. You are refusing to see this. All the rules of grammar are against you. Jesus connected two independent clauses both of which have the power to stand alone without the support of the other for both statements are true.

If he who believes will be saved (John 3:18) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well, so I believe those words.
You know this is not what this text says. This is not how you practice exegesis. You are introducing an element that does not appear in this text. This text does not say "he who believes will be saved." Appealing to John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 will not overturn the force of Jesus words in this text. You are trying to pit one scripture against another hoping this will render the one impotent. It will not.

What do you believe about he who believes and is unable to get baptized prior to death? Saved or condemned?
Since scripture does not give us any such scenario, I will leave this up to the Lord.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,498
13,436
113
58
But he did employ them here. You are refusing to see this.
Mark 16:16 does not negate John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. You are refusing to see that the omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not employ two conditions for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief, which is in harmony with John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11;25,26.

All the rules of grammar are against you. Jesus connected two independent clauses both of which have the power to stand alone without the support of the other for both statements are true.
False. Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Isolating the first half of Mark 16:16, then building your doctrine on it and ignoring the second half of the verse and John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 is flawed hermeneutics. *Show me where Jesus said whoever is not baptized will be condemned.

You know this is not what this text says. This is not how you practice exegesis.
If we look at this verse closely, we see that it 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. Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes. In interpreting this passage correctly, it is important to realize that while it tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they shall 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 have had to be included, that statement being: "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.

You are introducing an element that does not appear in this text. This text does not say "he who believes will be saved."
Jesus already said he who believes (no mention of baptism) will be saved nine different times and clarifies the first clause of Mark 16:16 with ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. So he who believes and is baptized will be saved has to be general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. *I'm still waiting for you to show me where Jesus said whoever is not baptized will be condemned.

Appealing to John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 will not overturn the force of Jesus words in this text.
Isolating the first half of Mark 16:16 and ignoring the second half of the verse does not negate or overturn the force of Jesus' words in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26.

You are trying to pit one scripture against another hoping this will render the one impotent. It will not.
No, I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture. Mark 16:16 does not render these 9 verses in John impotent.

Since scripture does not give us any such scenario, I will leave this up to the Lord.
The thief on the cross is such a scenario. In Matthew 27:39-43, 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. 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.