water baptism in Jesus' Name.

KJV

The Greek was translated into the use of the English word 'for' - the most appropriate word to use at the time of the translation.

The English word 'for' - from the time it was translated even to this day - like many English words - has many "senses" of the word - each according to context and usage.

At the time of the translation, the people understood how the various "senses" of the word applied to prepositional phrases.

Anyone who understands the English language well enough today should also understand how the various "senses" of the word apply to prepositional phrases.

The translators of your bible version extrapolated the wrong "sense" into a set of words that "fixed" the meaning in a way that does not allow for the true intended meaning - forcing it into the "sense" of 'in order to obtain' rather than 'because of'.

It is the use of the word 'for' in the English language that allows for the proper translated meaning.

Considering the fact that the words 'because of' are actually used many times in scripture, your question is a very good one that some very indepth study of the varied word usage should shed some light on.

Nonetheless, the word 'for' is also used in scripture (for reasons we may not understand unless-and-until we study it at length) - and, when it is encountered in whatever context, it must be examined carefully in the English (and, sometimes in the Greek) to discern the proper "sense" of the word intended.

My use of 'because of' and 'in order to obtain' is based on the modern-day understanding and use of the English language - to illustrate two different "senses" of the word 'for' as it may be used in a prepositional phrase. They are my own personal "closest approximation" phrases for my understanding of two of the different "senses" of the word 'for' - what 'for' means in a particular context-and-use - in scripture.

It is not a Greek question. It is not a translation question. It is a how-we-understand-the-English-language question.

1 Peter 3:

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 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,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The parenthetical statement is an explanation for the purpose of clarifying the use of the words 'save us' - not 'baptism'. The phrase 'putting away of the filth of the flesh' is referring to sin and not bathing. It is indeed making a reference to water baptism as a "like figure" of what is said in verse 20. It is an illustration, but it is not saying that water baptism can save a soul. Water baptism as an act of obedience to God is 'the answer of a good conscience toward God'.

Baptism is a picture of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. It is that which is the necessary requirement to save a soul. These verses are only making an illustrating using the "picture" of water baptism - what it stands for - to represent how it becomes 'the answer of a good conscience toward God'.

Look carefully, and you will see [the idea of] 'a good conscience toward God' throughout the chapter - and, in fact, the whole book. It is an integral part of the overall theme of the book.

None. Just understand that it is making an illustration - it is the 'calling on the name of the Lord' that washes away sin and not water baptism.

It most certainly is a "Greek question" and is not a "how-we-understand-the-English-language" question.

The Greek word eis can not in any sense be translated into English to mean "because of", this is basic Greek 101.
The Greek word dia is the proper word translated into English as "because of". Such as when Luke wrote in Acts 28:2.

Regardless of what "sense" you want to understand the English word "for", it is the Greek word eis that is in question.

The meaning of Luke's use of eis has already been "examined carefully in the English (and, sometimes in the Greek) to discern the proper "sense" of the word intended." Of the hundreds of bible versions in both English and in other languages no translation uses the verbiage "because of" in Acts 2:38.

Only someone blinded by a faith alone regeneration theology bias would want to rehash such a notion.

True, there were many washings, mikveh, etc. practiced in the OT. However, baptism for remission of sin was first introduced by John. Water baptism was later modified to include the name of Jesus after His death, burial and resurrection and is required of everyone living in the NT.

God sent John to baptize and preach of the coming Messiah.

"Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" Luke 3:2-7


The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:1-5



"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Luke 7:30

You are ignoring the fact that Paul asked the question in the first place. "Have you received the Holy Ghost SINCE you believed indicates one can believe but not have received the indwelling of the Holy Ghost yet. This is exactly what is expressed in the Samaritan account in Acts 8:12-19. The group believed the message and submitted to baptism in the name of Jesus. However, they did not actually receive the Holy Ghost until days later.

Paul's question, along with confirming scripture, proves that believing does not, in and of itself, assure that a person has received the Holy Ghost.

Dear JTBN,

Thank you for your observations and the scriptures you presented. Yes I do believe that Acts 2:38 is exactly as The Holy Spirit breathed them. So, should we assume that the word “baptism” immersion, meant immersion in water in Acts 2:38. No, not without some evidence that it was with water. As I mentioned in what I wrote, there are eight different immersions mentioned in the New Testament. So, we cannot just assume something.

If I may, can I as you this question concerning Acts 2:21 - 'and it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

This scripture, too, was breathed out by God and shouldn’t we assume it was breathed out exactly as intended? JTBN, if we do take this scripture as exactly as to what it says, couldn’t we just go down to the local bar and give anyone there $100 if they would call on the name of the Lord? How do you handle this?

JTBN, I would appreciate your comments on this.

Oh, one thing more. There is another verse in Psalms: Psalms 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.

What does it mean, “The sum of Your word is truth?”

God bless you,
Wayne

Yes I do believe that Acts 2:38 is exactly as The Holy Spirit breathed them.
Okay, so what does the verse "exactly" mean?

As I mentioned in what I wrote, there are eight different immersions mentioned in the New Testament.
Only eight? I bet if you try a little harder you can come up with a few more.

So, we cannot just assume something.
There is such a thing as a fair assumption. We all use it constantly. Without it the study of any subject would be impossible.
If someone says, "I am going to take a bath" do you wonder what they are going to bathe in?
Of course not, you are going to rightly assume it will be with water.
When someone is commanded to be baptized it is not with the baptism of Moses!
Bringing up your "eight different immersions" is nothing more then muddying up a clear verse.
Peter is simply commanding them to be baptized for the remission of sins in water, just as John the Baptist did.

Keep in mind that in Acts 2:38 a medium for immersion exists in the passage itself. Immersion into forgiveness of sins.

“And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.”
‭‭Joel‬ ‭2‬:‭32‬ ‭KJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/1/jol.2.32.KJV

I think this clarifies the issue you presented in Acts 2:21.

“(which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9‬:‭9‬-‭10‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/heb.9.10.ESV

The Greek word in this passage for washings is baptismois. Doesn’t this say that baptisms as a regulation for the body will end? Did one set of regulations for the body end only for another set to take hold?

The sum of his word is truth.

I think of this passage in Hebrews as it relates to 1Peter 3:21 as well. It says that regulations for the body cannot perfect the conscience. If you look at 1Peter 3:21 in P72 there is a semicolon, a dot, just prior to the word baptisma. When you see the verse in most translations baptism is included in the first clause of the verse, but the semicolon moves it beyond that point, and the verse appears to read something like this:

and you an antitype now saves; baptism not of the flesh, a putting away of the filth, but of a conscience good the demand toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You can look at P72 on csntm.org. The semicolon, a dot, is in Sinaiticus as well. As I ask myself if this could be the correct rendering of the verse I think about the similarities to Hebrews 9:9-10 and it sure seems plausible.

In this case, they did not yet believe. You are ignoring the fact that they answered Paul, “we have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” Paul further asked, "into what then were you baptized? They said, “Into John’s baptism.” Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Why the need to re-baptize them if they already believed on Christ Jesus? These disciples of John needed further instructions to become believers in Jesus then afterwards, they received the Holy Spirit after Paul laid hands on them (which is the exception, not the rule in every case of conversion, as in Acts 2 and Acts 10).

In the case of the Samaritans in Acts 8, there was a delay in receiving the Holy Spirit and it's most likely because the Jews despised the Samaritans and it may very well have been essential for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit in the presence of the Jews by the apostles for the purpose of confirmation that God has accepted the Samaritans in the body of Christ and for maintaining a unified church.

In the case of Simon the sorcerer in he was said to have “believed and was baptized” at the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:13) but later, Simon gives himself away when he offers the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit (verses 18–19), he is rebuked by Peter. Peter answered: May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. (verses 20-21) Peter went on to tell Simon to repent of his wickedness and said he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.

Simon followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. Even though we read that Simon "believed," the remainder of the verse hints at the true object of his belief: "the miracles and signs which were done". There are different levels of belief, and different objects of belief, and not all that’s called "belief" is saving belief in Christ. (Luke 8:13; John 2:23-25; 8:31-59; James 2:19)

Not in these exception, not the rule cases in Acts 8 and 19 during this transitional period of the church and for specific reasons, yet in general, believers receive the Holy Spirit upon believing. (John 7:38-39; Acts 11:17; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) I certainly did and so did all of my Christian friends and family members.

Scripture is the authority. Yet many just refuse to accept what is clearly revealed. Consequences are dire for those accepting tradition over the word of God. That truth is also found in the word.

You may want to re-evaluate your stance. Jesus did say that everyone will be judged by the word. And that tradition has the ability to make the word of God of none effect. (Mark 7:13)

1 Cor. 1:14-17 (ESV)
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I understand that people might disagree with this... but I find it interesting.

If water baptism were integral to Salvation... wouldn't Paul be saying here that he thanked God that he "brought none of you" to the point of Salvation?
Yet, he goes on to say that his preaching the Gospel (towards the goal of Salvation) was his ministry and that water baptism was (implied) of a lesser concern..?

"One does not have to believe in the Catholic concept of “baptismal regeneration” in order to acknowledge that there is a relationship between water immersion (obedience) and forgiveness of sins...

Peter unequivocally affirms that baptism is involved in our salvation. Just as Noah and his family were transported from an environment of corruption into a realm of deliverance, so, similarly, in baptism we are moved from the world of defilement into a redeemed relationship with the Lord (1 Pet. 3:21).


The Principle Involved
Perhaps it would be helpful if we would illustrate, by other cases in the Scriptures, the principle that is involved in this relationship.

The Case of Naaman
Naaman was an officer in the Syrian army, but he was woefully afflicted with the dreaded disease leprosy. The prophet Elisha bade him go “wash” in the Jordan river, promising that he would be “clean.” Finally, after some equivocation, the captain thus did, and his flesh was restored (2 Kgs. 5:14).

Certainly there was no merit in Jordan’s water, and there is no textual suggestion that Namaan was disposed to trust in the efficacy of the river; he simply came to a state of confidence in the prophet’s message. There was no “water healing” in this case. But who, thinking rationally, could deny that his restoration was dependent upon submission to the divine command?

The Man Born Blind
Jesus once encountered a man who had been blind since birth. The Lord spat upon the ground and made a clay potion, anointing the man’s eyes. He then commissioned the gentleman to: “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (Jn. 9:7). The man obeyed; he washed, and came away seeing.

Was there medicinal value in Siloam’s water? Of course not. Should the blind man have refused the Savior’s command? What if he had reasoned in this fashion: “If I go and wash, that will suggest that I am trusting in water. I do not believe in ‘washing restoration.’ I do not wish to ‘merit’ my sight. Therefore, I will simply trust in Jesus’ power to heal, and refrain from going to Siloam.” Just what would have been the result?" Christiancourier

I agree.

I noticed something relative to chapter 3 verse 16 in a few NT books; they address points associated with salvation:

Matt 3:16 (believe and follow)
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 3:16 (believe and receive name change)
And Simon he surnamed Peter;

Luke 3:16 (water and Spirit)
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

John 3:16 (belief in Jesus prompts obedience)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Acts 3:16 (faith in Jesus' name)
And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

1 Tim 3:16 (faith in the deity of Jesus)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

2 Tim 3:16 (Believe All scripture)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

"Just as Noah and his family were transported from an environment of corruption into a realm of deliverance, so, similarly, in baptism we are moved from the world of defilement into a redeemed relationship with the Lord (1 Pet. 3:21)." This quote from Christiancourier speaks volumes.

It is a deception of the enemy to downgrade the significance of water baptism in the name of the Jesus. Obedience to it is essential to salvation because God said so. Refusing to accept the word is a dire mistake.

Again, you veer from Paul's INITIAL question. His question speaks a truth in and of itself! HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YOU BELIEVED? indicating people believe yet do not receive the Holy Ghost at that point in time.

Open your eyes, EVEN that account itself reveals that the group did not instantaneously receive the Holy Ghost the moment they believed in Jesus. The Ephesians received the Holy Ghost AFTER believing in Jesus, AND AFTER being baptized in water in His name.

And your rambling on about the Samaritan account changes nothing. They too believe Philip's message concerning Jesus and His name, and even after being baptized in water the group did not receive the Holy Ghost until days later. PERIOD.

Paul asked the question assuming they may have already believed, yet after further discussion, realized these disciples of John needed further instructions to become believers in Jesus then afterwards, they were re-baptized, as I already thoroughly explained in post #1,190.

Oh the irony.

2 Corinthians 4:3 - But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.