water baptism in Jesus' Name.

This is the verse.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
As you can tell it is not written in a conclusive manner.

If I could, I would like to help us remember that there are two types of works: Works of Righteousness (Titus 3:5) and Works of Faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3 and 2 Thessalonians 1:11).

As far as baptism in all the conversions through Acts 9 are all in the passive voice which means it is a work done to us by someone else.

In Acts 22:16 baptism is in the meddle voice.

It simply means that Paul had to allow it to be done to him. If baptism was in active voice, it would mean that that we were doing the work.

Paul shows us in Colossians 2:12 that when we are baptized, we are raised up with Him (Jesus) through faith in the working of God..."

Notice it is our faith in the working of God that we are raised up with Jesus.

This translation has made some gratuitous changes, and you have also omitted verse 10. So when taken a a whole (verses 7-10), this is a DEFINITIVE PASSAGE about salvation. Let's stick with the tried and true KJB and break it down clause by clause:

That in the ages to come
he might shew
the exceeding riches of his grace
in his kindness toward us
through Christ Jesus
For by grace are ye saved through faith
and that not of yourselves
it is the gift of God
Not of works
lest any man should boast
For we are his workmanship
created in Christ Jesus unto good works
which God hath before ordained
that we should walk in them.

So what does passage this teach us?
1. What is salvation? IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD
2. What is the basis of salvation? IT IS THE GRACE AND KINDNESS OF GOD
3. How is one saved? THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST AND HIS FINISHED WORK OF REDEMPTION
4. Can anything be added to saving faith? NOT ONE THING
5. Does salvation lead to good works? ABSOLUTELY
6. Is water baptism necessary for salvation? ABSOLUTELY NOT
7. Who has given us this revelation? GOD HIMSELF THROUGH PAUL
8. Should we believe God implicitly? ABSOLUTELY

A distinction without a difference. "Works of righteousness" are works done in righteousness so they are works of faith/works produced out of faith. How many genuine works of righteousness (works done in righteousness) do non-Christians produce? Works of righteousness cannot be produced from the unrighteous. In Acts 10:35, we read - But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. This is 'descriptive' of Christian (who has been saved through faith) and not a prerequisite to become saved. (Titus 3:5)

Roman Catholics and other works-salvationists also make the same argument that you made about not saved by "these" works, but saved by "those" works when the Bible NOWHERE says we are saved by works of any kind. In 1 Thessalonians 1:3, notice the words "work of" faith, "labor of" love and "patience of" hope in 1 Thessalonians 1:3. These are the practical outworking of the Thessalonians' conversion. The "work" the Thessalonians do is a result or consequence of their faith. So too their "labor" flows from love and their "endurance" comes from hope. Work "of" faith does not mean that faith in essence is the work accomplished or that they were saved based on those works accomplished. Their work is a result or consequence "of" their faith. The work done is "of" faith or done "out of" faith. Faith was already established at conversion and then the work followed as a result or consequence "of" their faith.

Yet we still submit to being water baptized which still makes it a work on our part.

Meddle or middle? Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

Just because we don't baptize ourselves does not mean that submitting to being water baptized isn't a work. So why didn't Paul simply say in Ephesians 2:8 that we are saved through faith and water baptism? He simply said faith and faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism.

Water baptism is the picture and not the reality of being raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Don't leave out who raised Him from the dead. We place our faith in the risen Savior (working of God) and not in water baptism.

Hi JBTN,

You concluded with this comment concerning Acts 2:38.

Knowing that Acts 2:38 was breathed out by God, shouldn’t we assume it was breathed out exactly as intended.

If you believe, that since this baptism in Acts 2:38 does not say it includes water, does this mean that they only thing that we need to do to be saved is "call on the name of the Lord"? Please reply as I am interested how you handle this since you have stated that our salvation is by faith.

Thank you,
Wayne

You assert that the verses presented has "some gratuitous changes" but you don't supply an example?

I am not obligated to supply any examples but I will. OK let's look at your translation: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Does this even correspond to the Greek?

1. "It is" added to "for by" unnecessarily.
2. "You have been saved" (past tense) is not the same as "ye are saved" (present tense).
3. "Not from yourselves" vs "not of yourselves" changes the meaning.
4. "Not by works" is not the same as "not of works" since it changes the meaning.
5. "Lest any man should boast" replaced by "so that no one can boast" also changes the meaning.

Now none of this was necessary, and as a matter of fact it changed the meaning very subtly. I will let discerning Christians determine how those changes impact on this passage.

Ranking verses as more or less definitive based on their construction isn't biblical. Verses are definitive by virtue of being scripture.
So it leaves us with a decision to make when verses of scripture seem to contradict one another. How do you reconcile the verses?

One thing I've found helpful is to study further the surrounding text. Clearly Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 2:38 seem contradictory at face value. One says no works are required while the other suggests that two different acts are required.
The surrounding texts are helpful. Ephesians 2 begins with a description of the natural or unredeemed man. He is dead, being dominated, and apparently doomed. Verse 4 begins to tell what God does for those He finds in this condition. He acts mercifully according to grace, employs faith, and salvation is produced.
I would argue the same thing is in operation in Acts 2. Peter preaches the gospel. According to Romans 10, the word of God produces hearing, and hearing produces faith.
So let's look at Acts 2:37. Peter has just finished preaching and it says...when they heard this...Exactly what Romans 10 says will happen did...word of God leads to hearing. So what must have happened? Faith was the outcome. They believed. Not only did they believe, they were pricked in the heart. This is spiritual circumcision and is what physical circumcision always pointed to.
So the question is asked...What shall we do?...What should be the response of someone who has gotten saved? Repentance reflects a turning away from sin. That certainly seems logical. Get baptized? Obedience to Jesus command to be baptized seems like a proper response to one who now loves Him...if you love me you will keep my commandments.
I recognize that one of the arguments you have offered is that repentance and baptism are not works. This seems more than a little untenable. They are clearly things that people do. When you go to your place of employment, do you get paid for the things you do? Of course you do. Your work is what you do. If it wasn't work, your employer should be able to require it of you when you aren't working. Imagine how you would respond at the end of the week your employer refused to pay you. Why you ask. Well says your employer, I don't consider the things you do as work.

Ranking verses as more or less definitive based on their construction isn't biblical.
"Isn't biblical"??
How can you understand the Bible without understanding basic grammar? The Bible is presented as prose and without the knowledge of the language it is written in how can you rightly divide the word of God. (2nd Tim. 2:15)

Verses are definitive by virtue of being scripture.
You don't understand the meaning of definitive.
definitive

dĭ-fĭn′ĭ-tĭv
adjective

1. Serving to define or identify as distinct from others.
2. Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive: synonym: decisive.
3. Authoritative and complete.

Clearly Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 2:38 seem contradictory at face value.
These two scriptures are not contradictory at any value.
They are distinct and do not negate the other.
They are both true and do not need our senseabilities to be understood.
Both are saying that we need faith to be saved.
But Acts 2:38 is saying that those with faith will have their sins forgiven at baptism.

Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

The above article is a perfect example to what lengths those who push faith alone regeneration theology will go in order to defend such beliefs. Over 1112 words and 19 cross-references used in an attempt to convince others that Acts 22:16 does not mean what it clearly states. This is no way to defend a theology.

So you went through the trouble to count how many words and how many cross-references were in that article, yet you have no rebuttal for what was written in the article that refutes your biased interpretation of Acts 22:16. Your method of defending a theology is called "flawed hermeneutics."

So according to you, Acts 22:16 must clearly states that baptism washes away sins, in contradiction to numerous passages of scripture which make it clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8.9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

In regards to Acts 22:16, as Greek scholar AT Robertson points out, baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, but it does not literally wash away our sins, contrary to your conclusion.

Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes not of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160]. Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).

In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism. (Acts 10:43-47) In Acts 26:18, remission of sins is connected with "sanctified by faith in Me" and not with baptism. In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (vs 15), although the apostle had not yet been water baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear His name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15) and such a commission is not for one who is still lost in their sins. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO.

So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was BEFORE he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism.

It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was still lost in his sins.

*HERMENEUTICS*

Since Acts 22:16 "on the surface" appears to teach that baptism literally washes away sins, should we also interpret John 6:54-56 to mean that we literally eat Jesus' flesh and literally drink His blood when we partake of the Lord's supper? Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. So the correct interpretation results in cannibalism? Roman Catholics seem to believe so and teach the false doctrine of transubstantiation.

Yet, Jesus is the Bread of Life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths. John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and shed blood, receiving eternal life.

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" as the result is the same, eternal life.

*HERMENEUTICS*

No scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

Where did Jesus say that baptism is the direct cause of us receiving remission of sins? Where does Jesus draw the line in the sand on who will and who will not receive eternal life?

*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.

My faith is in the risen Savior for salvation and not in water baptism. I am trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 15:1-4; Romans 1:16) If you are denying your need to place your faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation and are instead trusting in water baptism as a supplemental means of salvation, then you are not placing your faith in the risen Savior, but are placing your faith in water baptism and in your theology. This would also mean that you do not believe the gospel.

Believing in Jesus includes accepting what He says; He is the word. Believe the word and take a step of faith and obey the command to be baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ and you shall see. (John 3:3-5)

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48

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

Jesus said, repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

Then 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. Acts 2:38

The fulfillment of Acts 10:43 relative to having ones sins remitted is revealed in Acts 10:47-48 when the group was baptized in water in the name:

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Acts 10:43 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Acts 10:47-48

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

Why did you ignore the explanation I shared with you? The verses are clearly contradictory at face value. You can have faith alone and faith plus works.

Does Romans 10:9 contradict Eph. 2:8-9 since it clearly adds confessing with your mouth Jesus as Lord to the "believe in your heart"? Is Romans 10:9 pushing faith plus works?

They are not contradictory. You insist they are because of your faith alone regeneration theology.

Example:

A teacher tells her students the day before an exam: "Remember everyone, study hard and you will pass the test."
The same teacher informs her students that a minimum of 75 out of 100 is needed to pass,

Are the above two statements true? Yes.
Are the above two statements contradictory? Of course not.

Does Romans 10:9 contradict Eph. 2:8-9 since it clearly adds confessing with your mouth Jesus as Lord to the "believe in your heart"?
Is Romans 10:9 pushing faith plus works?

So you went through the trouble to count how many words and how many cross-references were in that article, yet you have no rebuttal for what was written in the article that refutes your biased interpretation of Acts 22:16. Your method of defending a theology is called "flawed hermeneutics."

So according to you, Acts 22:16 must clearly states that baptism washes away sins, in contradiction to numerous passages of scripture which make it clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8.9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

In regards to Acts 22:16, as Greek scholar AT Robertson points out, baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, but it does not literally wash away our sins, contrary to your conclusion.

Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes not of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160]. Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).

In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism. (Acts 10:43-47) In Acts 26:18, remission of sins is connected with "sanctified by faith in Me" and not with baptism. In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (vs 15), although the apostle had not yet been water baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear His name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15) and such a commission is not for one who is still lost in their sins. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO.

So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was BEFORE he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism.

It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was still lost in his sins.

*HERMENEUTICS*

Since Acts 22:16 "on the surface" appears to teach that baptism literally washes away sins, should we also interpret John 6:54-56 to mean that we literally eat Jesus' flesh and literally drink His blood when we partake of the Lord's supper? Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. So the correct interpretation results in cannibalism? Roman Catholics seem to believe so and teach the false doctrine of transubstantiation.

Yet, Jesus is the Bread of Life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths. John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and shed blood, receiving eternal life.

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" as the result is the same, eternal life.

*HERMENEUTICS*

No scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

Where did Jesus say that baptism is the direct cause of us receiving remission of sins? Where does Jesus draw the line in the sand on who will and who will not receive eternal life?

*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.

My faith is in the risen Savior for salvation and not in water baptism. I am trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 15:1-4; Romans 1:16) If you are denying your need to place your faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation and are instead trusting in water baptism as a supplemental means of salvation, then you are not placing your faith in the risen Savior, but are placing your faith in water baptism and in your theology. This would also mean that you do not believe the gospel.

It's not any more than Acts 2:38. Both are done after salvation. God's work produces salvation. Our work evidences it.

So someone being water baptized is proof (evidence) of their salvation?
Do you really believe that?
Be honest.

I don't even take the physical act of water baptism as proof of salvation.

Go back and read what I shared. Peter preached the gospel. They heard it. Faith was exercised. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God...Romans 10. You are saved by grace through faith.
Who pricked them in their hearts?