Are gifts evidence of salvation?

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

What in the world is THAT? Some woman in partial armor, proving something to someone? She's not even wearing the helmet, so how is that at all related to that verse in Ephesians...referring to that image in post 278?

MM

Don't sweat over it. it's just a signature.

🌸

 

[Dropship]

Some years ago there was a big Baptist rally in Leicester (England) town hall square, so I asked one of them "I love Jesus but haven't been baptised, so will I be going to hell?"
He looked a bit embarrassed and seemed unable to give a straight answer, so he called some of his chums over and they couldn't give a straight answer either.
Then their Big Boss himself came over to see what was going on, so I repeated my question and he said with a smile "No, you won't be going to hell"..

PS- baptism is fine for people if they feel it strengthens their faith, but the danger is they'll then think that their baptism means they're now saved, and as a result will drop their guard against Satan..

 

[ResidentAlien]

Some years ago there was a big Baptist rally in Leicester (England) town hall square, so I asked one of them "I love Jesus but haven't been baptised, so will I be going to hell?"
He looked a bit embarrassed and seemed unable to give a straight answer, so he called some of his chums over and they couldn't give a straight answer either.
Then their Big Boss himself came over to see what was going on, so I repeated my question and he said with a smile "No, you won't be going to hell"..

PS- baptism is fine for people if they feel it strengthens their faith, but the danger is they'll then think that their baptism means they're now saved, and as a result will drop their guard against Satan..

You want a straight answer? Yes, if you continue to harden your heart against the Lord's will, even when you know it, you probably will end up in Hell because your faith isn't genuine.

 

[Lamar]

So, according to you the thief on the cross may have been converted, was water baptized, yet the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely) In Matthew 27:39-44, 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. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. That's all the proof I need.

Now the question is not about promises given but about what is baptism 'FOR' in Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3 and Acts 2:38? See post #244 above.

I have already gone over Acts 2:38 with you. See post #456 from the link below:

Saved by faith alone? - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums

So, according to you the thief on the cross could not have been among the many water baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3) . And you base this on simple conjecture?

Well the Apostle Peter did worse. He denied Jesus three times and was without excuse being among the Lord's most trusted friends.

Can we surmise that Peter was not baptized because of this? After all "That's all the proof you need".

You lack a proper respect for basic hermeneutics.

Assuming what happened to the thief on the cross can be applied to everyone equally.
(Error of Universalizing)

Making the assertion that "eis" in Acts 2:38 should be translated "because of" (past tense) instead of "so that" (future tense).
(Error of Precedent)

Not to mention that the story of the thief on the cross is recorded as a simple conversation.
(Rule of Prescriptive vs. Descriptive)

In the end, building an assertion on an assumption (thief on the cross not baptized) is simply a grasping at straws.

Lamar

 

[Lamar]

Some years ago there was a big Baptist rally in Leicester (England) town hall square, so I asked one of them "I love Jesus but haven't been baptised, so will I be going to hell?"
He looked a bit embarrassed and seemed unable to give a straight answer, so he called some of his chums over and they couldn't give a straight answer either.
Then their Big Boss himself came over to see what was going on, so I repeated my question and he said with a smile "No, you won't be going to hell"..

PS- baptism is fine for people if they feel it strengthens their faith, but the danger is they'll then think that their baptism means they're now saved, and as a result will drop their guard against Satan..

Anecdotal much?

PS - Baptism is for (future tense) the remission of sins, not a sign of (past tense) the remission of sins.

Lamar

 

[Dropship]

..if you continue to harden your heart against the Lord's will, even when you know it, you probably will end up in Hell because your faith isn't genuine.

Paul never regarded baptism as being vital for salvation-
"Jesus sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17)

And baptism is no guarantee of salvation-
"..they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 8:15-16)

And the holy spirit can come even before baptism..
"The Caesareans have received the holy spirit, so let's baptise them" (Acts 10:47)

 

[ResidentAlien]

Paul never regarded baptism as being vital for salvation-
"Jesus sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17)

And baptism is no guarantee of salvation-
"..they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 8:15-16)

And the holy spirit can come even before baptism..
"The Caesareans have received the holy spirit, so let's baptise them" (Acts 10:47)

If you can't even obey a very simple thing like baptism, the very first step a new believer should take, you're probably deep in self-deception. Sounds to me like you're looking for ways to rationalize your way out of it; why, I have no clue. In any event, it's not my problem and I don't plan on losing any sleep over it.

 

[DJT_47]

Paul never regarded baptism as being vital for salvation-
"Jesus sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17)

And baptism is no guarantee of salvation-
"..they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 8:15-16)

And the holy spirit can come even before baptism..
"The Caesareans have received the holy spirit, so let's baptise them" (Acts 10:47)

You're not understanding what occurred in Caesarea and why the Spirit became manifested in the manner it did and prior to the laying on of an apostle's hands as was necessary in all other recorded events other than Acts 2 where the Spirit fell similarly but on the apostles. In both cases, both of which were unique and not the norm, it was a heavenly sign to validate what was taking place. In Jerusalem it ultimately ushered in the church amongst the Jews, and likewise in Caesarea, it ultimately resulted in the church being established amongst the Gentiles. All other times wherein the manifestation of the Spirit occurred producing one or more of the gifts (so-called) as listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10, it was subsequent to and the result of the laying on of the apostle's hands.

 

[mailmandan]

Well the Apostle Peter did worse. He denied Jesus three times and was without excuse being among the Lord's most trusted friends.

That was not worse. The thief on the cross, along with the chief priests' scribes and elders and the other thief who refused to repent blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus. Peter simply had a temporary, weak moment because he was afraid. After denying Christ three times he remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So Peter went out and wept bitterly. (Luke 22:61-62)

Can we surmise that Peter was not baptized because of this? After all "That's all the proof you need".

Peter was not being crucified for being a thief and there is a difference between blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus, along with the chief priests' scribes and elders and the other thief who refused to repent, and having a weak moment and denying Jesus three times out of fear. Can you show me any passages mentioning the baptism of the apostles? I'm yet to find such a passage. In John 4:2 we read that Jesus disciples were baptizing many. It seems very unlikely that Jesus would have his apostles baptize those who believed in him if they had not themselves been baptized themselves.

You lack a proper respect for basic hermeneutics.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Assuming what happened to the thief on the cross can be applied to everyone equally.
(Error of Universalizing)

What happened to the thief on the cross was a unique situation.

Making the assertion that "eis" in Acts 2:38 should be translated "because of" (past tense) instead of "so that" (future tense).
(Error of Precedent)

As I already explained multiple times, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So, the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

As Greek scholar AT Robertson explains: One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So, I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.

Not to mention that the story of the thief on the cross is recorded as a simple conversation.
(Rule of Prescriptive vs. Descriptive)

The story of the thief on the cross is an excellent example of a death bed conversion and salvation apart from water baptism.

In the end, building an assertion on an assumption (thief on the cross not baptized) is simply a grasping at straws.

I disagree, and I clearly made my case from scripture, which is far from grasping at straws, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Inquisitor]

Like what EXACTLY? Name the "idiotic" and "comical" stuff.

No musical instruments allowed. Musical instruments were highlighted in the Old Testament but because no one mentioned. The use of musical instruments in the N.T. The Church of Christ assumed the early Christians sang without music. It beggars belief, that a church would make that kind of stupid assumption.

They want to conduct their service the same as a first century church, in the 20th and 21st century? Did they really think this one through. What are they trying to do? Follow some weird type of early holiness pattern because it must have been better back then?

Of course, they underwent church splits along the way.

 

[Inquisitor]

Some years ago there was a big Baptist rally in Leicester (England) town hall square, so I asked one of them "I love Jesus but haven't been baptised, so will I be going to hell?"
He looked a bit embarrassed and seemed unable to give a straight answer, so he called some of his chums over and they couldn't give a straight answer either.
Then their Big Boss himself came over to see what was going on, so I repeated my question and he said with a smile "No, you won't be going to hell"..

PS- baptism is fine for people if they feel it strengthens their faith, but the danger is they'll then think that their baptism means they're now saved, and as a result will drop their guard against Satan..

Your correct Dropship.

The water baptism is a once in your lifetime, symbolic, external, ritual. John's water baptism was fulfilled by Jesus, as was everything else, all things were fulfilled by Jesus.

A new type of baptism is introduced by Jesus.

Matthew 3:11
As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

This is not a difficult fulfillment to understand.

 

[DJT_47]

No musical instruments allowed. Musical instruments were highlighted in the Old Testament but because no one mentioned. The use of musical instruments in the N.T. The Church of Christ assumed the early Christians sang without music. It beggars belief, that a church would make that kind of stupid assumption.

They want to conduct their service the same as a first century church, in the 20th and 21st century? Did they really think this one through. What are they trying to do? Follow some weird type of early holiness pattern because it must have been better back then?

Of course, they underwent church splits along the way.

Speak where the Bible speaks remain silent where it is silent.

There is no record of musical instruments being used during worship in the NT church

Is it wrong or sinful? No. But, whenever you start intersecting musical instruments it becomes a slippery slope: it can become entertainment the members view with little participation.

I worked with a Baptist whose job it was to run the mixing board for their services. Was he worshipping God? Like I said, it's a slippery slope with more and more, bigger and better. A capella singing is pure and all members participate.

 

[mailmandan]

Speak where the Bible speaks remain silent where it is silent.

There is no record of musical instruments being used during worship in the NT church

Is it wrong or sinful? No. But, whenever you start intersecting musical instruments it becomes a slippery slope: it can become entertainment the members view with little participation.

I worked with a Baptist whose job it was to run the mixing board for their services. Was he worshipping God? Like I said, it's a slippery slope with more and more, bigger and better. A capella singing is pure and all members participate.

Musical instruments can be used to enhance the singing of praise to the Lord and were obviously considered a help to praise in the Old Testament. Since instrumental music has the Old Testament precedent of being approved of God ("musical instruments of God" 1 Chronicles 16:42), and there is no evidence that there was a time when this approval ceased, we have biblical authority for its validity.

We are authorized to use “psalms” in the NT (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Ephesians 5:19 says "..speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.." and correspondingly Colossians 3:16 says to, "..admonish one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." The word "psalm" in the Greek dictionary, definition (#5568): "A set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp, or other instrument)." The root word of psalm means "to twitch, twang or pluck," such as pluck a string of a musical instrument."

Strong's Concordance
psalmos: a striking (of musical strings), a psalm
Original Word: ψαλμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: psalmos
Phonetic Spelling: (psal-mos')
Short Definition: a psalm
Definition: a psalm, song of praise, the Hebrew book of Psalms.
HELPS Word-studies
5568 psalmós – a psalm ("Scripture set to music"). Originally, a psalm (5568 /psalmós) was sung and accompanied by a plucked musical instrument (typically a harp), especially the OT Psalms.

[The Psalms of the OT were often sung and were accompanied by sophisticated musical arrangements].

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from psalló
Definition
a striking (of musical strings), a psalm
NASB Translation
Psalm (1), psalm (1), Psalms (3), psalms (2).

The words "making melody" are used in Ephesians 5:19, but "how" this is done is found in Isaiah 23:16, and it is with a musical instrument:" Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered."

Also, Amos 5:23 speaks of "the melody of thy viols," which is also reference to a musical instrument. So if "the Bible interprets itself," these passages show "how" to make melody – with musical instruments.

 

[Dropship]

If you can't even obey a very simple thing like baptism, the very first step a new believer should take, you're probably deep in self-deception. Sounds to me like you're looking for ways to rationalize your way out of it; why, I have no clue. In any event, it's not my problem and I don't plan on losing any sleep over it.

Jesus said "give all your money to the poor", yet most christians don't obey that..
My point is that we have to take all he said in context, including baptism.
Baptism pre-dated the arrival of Jesus and was simply a harmless symbolic washing away of sins, so he had no wish to abolish it.
I myself never had any inclination to get baptised.
Anyway i know some people who've been baptised but they live very unchristian lifestyles and have very unchristian beliefs, so baptism hasn't done them any good at all..

 

[ResidentAlien]

Jesus said "give all your money to the poor", yet most christians don't obey that..
My point is that we have to take all he said in context, including baptism.
Baptism pre-dated the arrival of Jesus and was simply a harmless symbolic washing away of sins, so he had no wish to abolish it.
I myself never had any inclination to get baptised.
Anyway i know some people who've been baptised but they live very unchristian lifestyles and have very unchristian beliefs, so baptism hasn't done them any good at all..

Like I said, that's your problem not mine. I think you're wrong but it's between you and God. I'm done with this exchange.

 

[DJT_47]

So, according to you the thief on the cross could not have been among the many water baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3) . And you base this on simple conjecture?

Well the Apostle Peter did worse. He denied Jesus three times and was without excuse being among the Lord's most trusted friends.

Can we surmise that Peter was not baptized because of this? After all "That's all the proof you need".

You lack a proper respect for basic hermeneutics.

Assuming what happened to the thief on the cross can be applied to everyone equally.
(Error of Universalizing)

Making the assertion that "eis" in Acts 2:38 should be translated "because of" (past tense) instead of "so that" (future tense).
(Error of Precedent)

Not to mention that the story of the thief on the cross is recorded as a simple conversation.
(Rule of Prescriptive vs. Descriptive)

In the end, building an assertion on an assumption (thief on the cross not baptized) is simply a grasping at straws.

Lamar

Lamar; I'll provide this response here to you BUT, it's really intended for Mr. 3rd class mail who continues to vainly twist and distort the scriptures to justify his erroneous beliefs.

Below he said he has explained Acts 2:38 many times which is a nonsensical statement because it's pursuant to the aforementioned distorted methodology he employs, so let me clarify for HIM here what his error is in regards to Acts 2:38. He said the following:

"As I already explained multiple times, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis."

Here's Acts 2:38 (KJV)

"38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In the above and what Mr. 3rd class mail fails to realize, which makes his logic incorrect, is that that, contrary to his assertion that the two issues, repentance and baptism, are separate, they are NOT separate and both are required for the remission of sins: they are NOT separate because they are inextricably tied together by the conjunctive word "AND", meaning one is dependent upon the other and both are necessary to achieve the result, which is "for the remission of sins". The conjunction "and" is the key word that ties both words together and both being required. Separately they are individually of no value in this passage. Both elements are necessary. This is no different than in Mark 16:15-16 (below) where the conjunction 'and' is used between the words "believeth" and "baptized", which conjunction (and) likewise inextricably ties the two words together, which in this passage, results in salvation, "shall be saved".

Mark 16:15-16

"15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

You can relay this in your response to him, or we can assume he'll pickup on it in his normal reading of this thread.

God bless

 

[mailmandan]

Lamar; I'll provide this response here to you BUT, it's really intended for Mr. 3rd class mail who continues to vainly twist and distort the scriptures to justify his erroneous beliefs.

Below he said he has explained Acts 2:38 many times which is a nonsensical statement because it's pursuant to the aforementioned distorted methodology he employs, so let me clarify for HIM here what his error is in regards to Acts 2:38. He said the following:

"As I already explained multiple times, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis."

Here's Acts 2:38 (KJV)

"38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In the above and what Mr. 3rd class mail fails to realize, which makes his logic incorrect, is that that, contrary to his assertion that the two issues, repentance and baptism, are separate, they are NOT separate and both are required for the remission of sins: they are NOT separate because they are inextricably tied together by the conjunctive word "AND", meaning one is dependent upon the other and both are necessary to achieve the result, which is "for the remission of sins". The conjunction "and" is the key word that ties both words together and both being required. Separately they are individually of no value in this passage. Both elements are necessary. This is no different than in Mark 16:15-16 (below) where the conjunction 'and' is used between the words "believeth" and "baptized", which conjunction (and) likewise inextricably ties the two words together, which in this passage, results in salvation, "shall be saved".

Mark 16:15-16

"15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

You can relay this in your response to him, or we can assume he'll pickup on it in his normal reading of this thread.

God bless

I see that your church of Christ indoctrination runs deep. I already refuted your arguments surrounding Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 numerous times but sadly, you just don't have ears to hear. Your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with the rest of scripture but you don't seem to care. All you seem to care about is accommodating your biased church doctrine.

Again, the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony* Deal with it.

As Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson authored Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he said, - “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA238.pdf

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

https://christiandefense.org/general/3871/

In regard to Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with "..but he who does not believe will be condemned." It's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism. Did Jesus forget to mention baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29.40.47; 11:25-26? Hmm. All you do is cherry pick pet verses, build biased doctrine on them and ignore the rest. That's called "flawed hermeneutics." I on the other hand properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Deal with it.

 

[JohnRH]

I see that your church of Christ indoctrination runs deep. I already refuted your arguments surrounding Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 numerous times but sadly, you just don't have ears to hear. Your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with the rest of scripture but you don't seem to care. All you seem to care about is accommodating your biased church doctrine.

Again, the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony* Deal with it.

As Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson authored Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he said, - “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA238.pdf

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

https://christiandefense.org/general/3871/

In regard to Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with "..but he who does not believe will be condemned." It's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism. Did Jesus forget to mention baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29.40.47; 11:25-26? Hmm. All you do is cherry pick pet verses, build biased doctrine on them and ignore the rest. That's called "flawed hermeneutics." I on the other hand properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Deal with it.

It's possible that they got saved upon hearing Peter's account of Jesus (faith comes by hearing); they were "pricked in their heart". 'Repent' could be 'turning' from not being baptized to being baptized.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do [now that we're saved]?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins [that you have already received], and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:37-38 (KJV)

 

[DJT_47]

It's possible that they got saved upon hearing Peter's account of Jesus (faith comes by hearing); they were "pricked in their heart". 'Repent' could be 'turning' from not being baptized to being baptized.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do [now that we're saved]?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins [that you have already received], and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:37-38 (KJV)

"Men and brethren what shall we do?"

Realizing the fact that they were responsible for crucifying Jesus and that sin and error.

And Peter told them exactly what to do and why.

 

[Musicmaster]

Some years ago there was a big Baptist rally in Leicester (England) town hall square, so I asked one of them "I love Jesus but haven't been baptised, so will I be going to hell?"
He looked a bit embarrassed and seemed unable to give a straight answer, so he called some of his chums over and they couldn't give a straight answer either.
Then their Big Boss himself came over to see what was going on, so I repeated my question and he said with a smile "No, you won't be going to hell"..

PS- baptism is fine for people if they feel it strengthens their faith, but the danger is they'll then think that their baptism means they're now saved, and as a result will drop their guard against Satan..

With water baptism being a public declaration of an inner work, that's about the extent of its effects. It's good to perform the public declaration of that inner work, but water is not magical, with the power to do what not even the Mosaic Law could accomplish. The animal sacrifices did not save anyone either, but they were expected to be performed as a declarative recognition of the coming Messiah and the transference of one's sin onto another through blood. The blood is missing in the water since the water immersion symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection.

The cart must always remain after the horse, not before. Being water baptized before that inner transformation...no. I don't buy it that the water baptism saves anyone. The overly simplistic, surface reading of scripture most generally leads to that error. The hidden things of Christ are much deeper. Surface reading is for the pagans who like to mock Christians with the idea of water being magical and a supplement, or even replacement of what Christ suffered on the cross.

MM