Just Curious About Baptism.

  • 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.
DC, this is not a conspiracy nor is it a soteriological matter. This is a simple matter of linguistics. The word means what it means regardless on one's soteriology. You are allowing your soteriology to drive you interpretation of a word rather than allowing the language of the text to form your soteriology

NO I am allowing the truth to speak bro and you did not answer...which one is a direct quote form the bible and points to JESUS......SEE you will not answer, because it contradicts your view.....

When I see the blood I will pass over you

When I see the blood, water and works I will pass over you

Which one of the above two is a direct quote from the bible!
 
NO I am allowing the truth to speak bro and you did not answer...which one is a direct quote form the bible and points to JESUS......SEE you will not answer, because it contradicts your view.....

When I see the blood I will pass over you

When I see the blood, water and works I will pass over you

Which one of the above two is a direct quote from the bible!

Obviously the first one. Now, answer me this. Where does Paul say that we come into contact with the blood?
 
Many people use the the thief as an example and many say he died under the Old Covenant. But also think of this...Jesus died before the thief thus immediately bringing the New Covenant into affect. So the thief actually died under the New Covenant.
 
In our legal system, lawyers often use the term "But for". When they use that term they are saying for example... Mr. So-and -so would not have been injured "but for" your negligence. This would mean the same thing... But FOR, (Because of your negligence)
 
Many people use the the thief as an example and many say he died under the Old Covenant. But also think of this...Jesus died before the thief thus immediately bringing the New Covenant into affect. So the thief actually died under the New Covenant.
That's good, but I don't know that it's relevant. God's promise -- and Jesus is God -- is not dependent on circumstances. He told him, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" and that is exactly what He meant. If He intended baptism to be required for salvation, He would have either said so, or specifically negated it as a necessity for the thief's eternal destiny.
 
In our legal system, lawyers often use the term "But for". When they use that term they are saying for example... Mr. So-and -so would not have been injured "but for" your negligence. This would mean the same thing... But FOR, (Because of your negligence)

Yes, the English word 'for' can mean 'because of' and herein lies part of the misrepresentation of this passage. Although 'for' can mean because of, the word εἰς never does.
 
The law and the prophets were until JOHN who was dead and gone when this event took place so your point one is MOOT.....!

I'm curious, you're saying both the law and prophets are no more?
That's pretty odd when the last book of the renewed covenant (new testament) speaks about both the law and prophets quite frequently...
 
That's good, but I don't know that it's relevant. God's promise -- and Jesus is God -- is not dependent on circumstances. He told him, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" and that is exactly what He meant. If He intended baptism to be required for salvation, He would have either said so, or specifically negated it as a necessity for the thief's eternal destiny.

Well yeah that would be my point. Jesus tells this to the thief basically that because of his "faith" he will "be with him in paradise". The thief's salvation was determined by his faith not by being baptized.
 
Yes, the English word 'for' can mean 'because of' and herein lies part of the misrepresentation of this passage. Although 'for' can mean because of, the word εἰς never does.
Sorry, but that's just plain incorrect.

Another example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word εἰς communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word εἰς). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins.

But to see it as many wish to translate εἰς would put it in direct conflict with multiple verses that preach salvation by faith through grace alone. Adding baptism to salvation negates faith through grace alone as the means by which it is accomplished, and that simply is not biblical in any way, shape, or form.
 
Last edited:
Luke 3:3 states that John came “preaching baptism in symbol of repentance for forgiveness of sins” ,“baptism conditioned on repentance” (CB); “baptism whereby men repented, to have their sins forgiven” (Kx); “baptism in token of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (NE); “Turn away from your sins and be baptized, and God will forgive your sins” (TEV). Baptism did not wash away their sins, but the repentance and changing of their ways did, and of this, baptism was a symbol.
The baptism performed by John was therefore not a special cleansing from God through his servant John, but a public demonstration and symbol of the individual’s repentance over his sins against the Law, which was to lead them to Christ. (Ga 3:24) John thereby prepared a people to “see the saving means of God.” (Lu 3:6)

baptism of John is not the same as baptised in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.....

Acts 19:3-5King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
 
Obviously the first one. Now, answer me this. Where does Paul say that we come into contact with the blood?

Yeah it is called FAITH not baptism....

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS for the REMISSIONS OF SINS that are past, through the FORBEARANCE of GOD. To declare, I say, at this time HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS: that he might be just and the JUSTIFIER of him which BELIEVETH in JESUS.

It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that BELIEVE......

It is beyond the comprehension and ability of anyone to see the truth of simple faith when they blind themselves by ADDING to JESUS things that are not added.....

IF YOU BELIEVE the bible states.....YOU ARE SAVED, NOT CONDEMNED and are currently possessing EVERLASTING LIFE.....

Baptism (like figure, likeness) is the public profession of acceptance and BELIEF into the death, burial and resurrection of JESUS and states OPENLY that YOU BY FAITH are identified with JESUS and HIS FAITH.....

It is foolish to you that a man can simply believe and be saved......refer to bolded above.....
 
Many people bicker over this topic. This is not my intention so whatever comes out in the thread after my question, is on you and you alone. I am just learning myself, so be kind. You got to learn too..


I've grown up being taught baptism was a public profession of faith, yes. Sorta like it being an outward showing of what happened on the inside when we invite Jesus into our lives. So on so forth. But I've noticed something weird. My one question is where at in the bible do we come to this conclusion that it is what Christianity teaches baptism to be? Where is baptism said to be just a "symbol"?

Maybe I'm stupid not seeing it??
Hi, JesusMyOnly.

While discussing the topic of baptism, Paul wrote:

Romans chapter 6

[1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
[2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
[7] For he that is dead is freed from sin.
[8] Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
[10] For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
[11] Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[12] Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[13] Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
[14] For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
[15] What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
[16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
[17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.


The key to baptism, in my estimation, is found in verse 17 where Paul writes "but ye have obeyed FROM THE HEART that form of doctrine which was delivered you". IOW, if somebody hasn't truly determined to have their "old man (no, not their father or their husband...lol) crucified" (Romans 6:6) and then ceremonially "buried with Christ in baptism" (Romans 6:4) in order to truly then be "raised up in newness of life" (Romans 6:4), then they basically went into the water as a dry sinner and arose from the same as a wet sinner. I mean, think of the rite of circumcision in the Old Testament. There were many people who had been circumcised OUTWARDLY, yet they had never effectively dealt with "the foreskins of THEIR HEARTS":

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deuteronomy 10:16)

"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jeremiah 4:4)

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." (Jeremiah 9:25-26)

"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it." (Jeremiah 6:10)


All of the above passages of scripture pertain to those who had been CIRCUMCISED OUTWARDLY IN THE FORESKINS OF THEIR FLESH, yet they were either UNCIRCUMCISED IN THEIR HEARTS OR THEIR EARS...OR BOTH. Yes, both Paul and Stephen more than likely had such passages as these in mind when they wrote/said the following:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:28-29)

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." (Acts 7:51)


Again, as with the Old Testament passages that I cited, such things were being written/spoken in regard to those who had been CIRCUMCISED OUTWARDLY IN THE FORESKIN OF THEIR FLESH, but were yet UNCIRCUMCISED INWARDLY IN THEIR HEARTS AND/OR EARS.

With such in mind, please consider the following:

Romans chapter 4

[5] But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
[6] Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
[7] Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
[8] Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
[9] Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
[10] How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
[11] And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
[12] And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


Here, Paul reminds his readers that Abraham's faith was imputed unto him for righteousness long before he ever "received THE SIGN of circumcision" (Romans 4:11). IOW, Abraham's faith was actually imputed unto him for righteousness while he was yet UNCIRCUMCISED OUTWARDLY and when he finally was CIRCUMCISED OUTWARDLY, the same only served as "A SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised" (Romans 4:11). In relation to the same, we read:

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:6)

Here is where Abraham's faith was "counted to him for righteousness"...AND THIS OCCURRED AT LEAST 13 YEARS BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS CIRCUMCISED OUTWARDLY. How do we know this to be true? Well, Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born to him of the bondwoman Hagar (Genesis 16:16) and the covenant of circumcision wasn't given to Abraham UNTIL HE WAS 99 YEARS OLD OR UNTIL 13 YEARS LATER (Genesis 17:1-14).

Anyhow, my point is that Abraham's faith was accounted or imputed unto him for righteousness because he believed in the LORD or because HIS HEART WAS CIRCUMCISED and it wasn't until at least 13 years later that "he received THE SIGN of circumcision, A SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised" (Romans 4:11). IOW, his OUTWARD CIRCUMCISION was merely "a sign" or "a seal" or "a token" of the INWARD CIRCUMCISION OF HIS HEART WHICH PRECEDED HIS OUTWARD CIRCUMCISION...and it's basically the same exact principle with "baptism". Again, if one hasn't truly "OBEYED FROM THE HEART that form of doctrine that was delivered unto them" (Romans 6:17), then an OUTWARD BAPTISM is of no significance whatsoever. IOW, just like many who had been OUTWARDLY CIRCUMCISED were still UNCIRCUMCISED IN BOTH HEART AND EARS, so, too, can those who have been OUTWARDLY BAPTIZED still be living for themselves in that they've never truly been "crucified with Christ" and "buried with Him in baptism" IN THEIR HEARTS.

Hopefully, this helps.
 
This view rejects scripture....

1. THE LAW AND PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN

Was Peter, James, John, etc. the children of God and saved? YES...your view is flawed and denies the truth of eternal salvation of both the O.T. saints and ALL who had received JESUS that he states are saved before HIS death, burial and resurrection.....!


There was a series of prophets in the OT and John signaled the end of those prophets who would act as a connector or bridge in the transition from the OT law to the NT law. John did not bring an end to the law for that did not happen until Christ died on the cross. Christ (not John) was the one that took the OT law out of the way nailing it to His cross, Col 2:14 and Christ (not John) was the One that abolished the OT law, Eph 2:15. The NT could not come effect until AFTER Christ, the Testator of the NT, died, Heb 9:16,17. Just as people's wills do not take force until some time AFTER they die.
 
I'm curious, you're saying both the law and prophets are no more?
That's pretty odd when the last book of the renewed covenant (new testament) speaks about both the law and prophets quite frequently...

Why don't you ask JESUS as he is the one who said it and he knows way more than you or I........maybe your view of the law is flawed a bit chopper!

His quote...For ALL the prophets and ALL the LAW prophesied until JOHN....

John was the transitional hinge pin between the time period of the LAW and PROPHETS and what would come to be known as the Church AGE...Jesus started his church when he CALLED Out the disciples and The CHURCH is SPOKEN of in the present tense no less than two times during the ministry of JESUS as PASTOR of the 1st N.T. Church!
 
Only if you insist on that being the only meaning. Look up the word "for" in English and see how many definitions there are -- out of which is "because of." The Greek εἰς has even more meanings than does the English word "for": In the NASB, it is translated:
about (1), against (18), among (10), become* (5), before (2), before* (1), benefit (1), bestowed (1), beyond (1), beyond* (2), bring about (1), bring* (1), continually* (1), eliminated* (2), end (2), even (1), ever* (2), forever* (1), forward* (3), leading (2), leads (1), mine* (1), never* (1), next* (1), onto (2), over (1), perpetually* (1), reference (2), regard (3), relation (1), respect (2), result (3), resulted (2), resulting (10), sake (1), so (34), throughout (3), toward (23), until (4), view (3), why* (4).​

The Thayer's definition read: "εἰς, a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among."



The ENGLISH word "for" can sometimes mean "because" but not in the Greek for the Greek has separate distinct words for "because' and 'for'

Note how Thayer did not define eis as "because" but instead defines it as looking forward, towards.

Again, how do you work out those impossibilities of Mt 26:28 and 1 Tim 1:16 by making eis mean "because"?
 
Sorry, but that's just plain incorrect.

Another example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word εἰς communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word εἰς). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins.

You are misrepresenting the use of the word altogether. You cannot translate this as "because of" the preaching of Jonah, nor does any English translation I know of dare to translate it in such a fashion. This would be grossly irresponsible. The meaning if the word
εἰς pushes the direction of the repentance forward - they repented toward the preaching of Jonah. You have to construct the translation according to the definition of the words used. You cannot simply assign any definition to the language you want.
 
There was a series of prophets in the OT and John signaled the end of those prophets who would act as a connector or bridge in the transition from the OT law to the NT law. John did not bring an end to the law for that did not happen until Christ died on the cross. Christ (not John) was the one that took the OT law out of the way nailing it to His cross, Col 2:14 and Christ (not John) was the One that abolished the OT law, Eph 2:15. The NT could not come effect until AFTER Christ, the Testator of the NT, died, Heb 9:16,17. Just as people's wills do not take force until some time AFTER they die.

Thus view also belies ignorance of the word as my bible teaches that the work was finished before the casting down of the world and is the eyes of God was completed before he even brought forth a man upon the planet.....Your problem is simple...trust Jesus in a biblical manner and then you will be able to see the truth.....!
 
John was the transitional hinge pin between the time period of the LAW and PROPHETS and what would come to be known as the Church AGE...Jesus started his church when he CALLED Out the disciples and The CHURCH is SPOKEN of in the present tense no less than two times during the ministry of JESUS as PASTOR of the 1st N.T. Church!
"The Church Age" began at least as far back as Adam and Eve who were a part of "a great mystery" in that their natural union mirrored the spiritual union between Christ and His church. You can read all about the same at the tail end of Ephesians chapter 5. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is "a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world" (I Peter 1:19-20) and all of the Old Testament saints who believed in Him (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc., etc.) are therefore "members of His body" or MEMBERS OF HIS CHURCH and also part of what the Bible calls "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16).

My apologies to the OP for engaging in a discussion which has so greatly departed from her actual question.
 
Yeah it is called FAITH not baptism....

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS for the REMISSIONS OF SINS that are past, through the FORBEARANCE of GOD. To declare, I say, at this time HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS: that he might be just and the JUSTIFIER of him which BELIEVETH in JESUS.

It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that BELIEVE......

It is beyond the comprehension and ability of anyone to see the truth of simple faith when they blind themselves by ADDING to JESUS things that are not added.....

IF YOU BELIEVE the bible states.....YOU ARE SAVED, NOT CONDEMNED and are currently possessing EVERLASTING LIFE.....

Baptism (like figure, likeness) is the public profession of acceptance and BELIEF into the death, burial and resurrection of JESUS and states OPENLY that YOU BY FAITH are identified with JESUS and HIS FAITH.....

It is foolish to you that a man can simply believe and be saved......refer to bolded above.....

I have never understood this about you DC. You always feel that a logical argument will somehow overturn the language of the text. I asked you a question that you did not answer. Where does Paul say that we come into contact with the blood? Is it in his death or in his life?
 
Thus view also belies ignorance of the word as my bible teaches that the work was finished before the casting down of the world and is the eyes of God was completed before he even brought forth a man upon the planet.....Your problem is simple...trust Jesus in a biblical manner and then you will be able to see the truth.....!


Col 2:14; Eph 2:15; Heb 9:16,17.