water baptism in Jesus' Name.
- Thread starter heartwashed
- Start date
-
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.
Whether baptismal regeneration or baptismal remission, it still comes down to salvation by water baptism, which negates salvation through faith, not works. (Acts 15:7-9; 26:18; Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..). Obedience which follows salvic faith is works. Noah and his family were saved through water and literally by the ark. (Hebrews 11:7) They were not literally saved by the water. Only the wicked of Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.
In the first place, if being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case that reveals one can be saved without any water. Read about it in (Luke 5:12-15). No water is found here.
Second, Naaman was not even a believer until after dipping in Jordan. He said "NOW" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him (vs. 17). If we follow this "example," we will have to baptize unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (not eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times, but no sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.
The Bible uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, not of salvation by water baptism. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with salvation by H2O but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out. (2 Kings 5:15)
The blind man received his sight (not eternal life) by obeying the Savior's command to wash in the pool of Siloam, but no sins were literally remitted for the blind man in the pool of Siloam. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.
By the time we get down to verse 34, we see that the Pharisees cast the blind man (who can now see) out of the Synagogue. Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.” Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him. (John 9:35-38) That is how the blind man who can now see received the remission of sins and eternal life. (John 3:16; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 15:7-9; 26:18 etc..).
I noticed you cited these articles from Christiancourier. Here is an article below from that same site which is entitled:
Is a Word Formula Required in Administering Baptism?
“A friend of mine contends that Matthew 28:18-20 does not apply to us today (i.e., baptism into name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). He says that from the day of Pentecost onward, baptism was administered only in the name of Jesus. Would you comment on this?”
There are several things to be said in response to this unwarranted assumption. The gentleman obviously is under the impression that there is a particular word-formula that must be recited when the rite of baptism is being administered. This misconception is at the heart of the error he espouses. We offer the following observations regarding this matter.
Did Jesus Command Baptism In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
It is irresponsible to contend that the Lord commanded his apostles to baptize “into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28:19)—then to contend they never did this and that if we practice precisely what the Savior said to do we would be wrong.
Is a Word Formula Required in Administering Baptism? | ChristianCourier.com
In the first place, if being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case that reveals one can be saved without any water. Read about it in (Luke 5:12-15). No water is found here.
Second, Naaman was not even a believer until after dipping in Jordan. He said "NOW" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him (vs. 17). If we follow this "example," we will have to baptize unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (not eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times, but no sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.
The Bible uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, not of salvation by water baptism. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with salvation by H2O but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out. (2 Kings 5:15)
The blind man received his sight (not eternal life) by obeying the Savior's command to wash in the pool of Siloam, but no sins were literally remitted for the blind man in the pool of Siloam. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.
By the time we get down to verse 34, we see that the Pharisees cast the blind man (who can now see) out of the Synagogue. Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.” Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him. (John 9:35-38) That is how the blind man who can now see received the remission of sins and eternal life. (John 3:16; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 15:7-9; 26:18 etc..).
I noticed you cited these articles from Christiancourier. Here is an article below from that same site which is entitled:
Is a Word Formula Required in Administering Baptism?
“A friend of mine contends that Matthew 28:18-20 does not apply to us today (i.e., baptism into name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). He says that from the day of Pentecost onward, baptism was administered only in the name of Jesus. Would you comment on this?”
There are several things to be said in response to this unwarranted assumption. The gentleman obviously is under the impression that there is a particular word-formula that must be recited when the rite of baptism is being administered. This misconception is at the heart of the error he espouses. We offer the following observations regarding this matter.
Did Jesus Command Baptism In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
It is irresponsible to contend that the Lord commanded his apostles to baptize “into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28:19)—then to contend they never did this and that if we practice precisely what the Savior said to do we would be wrong.
Is a Word Formula Required in Administering Baptism? | ChristianCourier.com
-
3
-
1
- Show all
How about Acts 19? 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.” These disciples of John needed further instructions to become believers in Jesus. This is in harmony with 2 Corinthians 4:3,4. Nothing here about salvation by water baptism in Acts 19.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
How did Jesus "fulfill all righteousness" by insisting that John baptize Him in spite of John's protest? Jesus had no sin that needed remittance so what made it "righteousness"?
Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy of "My servant whom I have chosen" by which Israel is also called and indeed Jesus, being Israel's mediator, is David's representative and his redeemer. I believe the event of His baptism is a fulfillment of all requirements of the law of Moses. Then, when He came up, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and the Father's voice witnessed, "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," giving Him honor and glory (2Peter 1:17, For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying...)
The Son took the form of a servant, was baptized in John's baptism (in(to) the name of a servant), so that the servant might take the form of the Son (be baptized in(to) the name of Jesus). And indeed, after being baptized (into the name of a servant) Jesus commenced His mission toward the cross (when He would die the death of the servant (in the servant's stead) and entered the desert to be tempted of the devil.
The Witness of John
6There came a man who was sent from God. His name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that through him everyone might believe. 8He himself was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. 11He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God.
The Word Became Flesh
Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy of "My servant whom I have chosen" by which Israel is also called and indeed Jesus, being Israel's mediator, is David's representative and his redeemer. I believe the event of His baptism is a fulfillment of all requirements of the law of Moses. Then, when He came up, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and the Father's voice witnessed, "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," giving Him honor and glory (2Peter 1:17, For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying...)
The Son took the form of a servant, was baptized in John's baptism (in(to) the name of a servant), so that the servant might take the form of the Son (be baptized in(to) the name of Jesus). And indeed, after being baptized (into the name of a servant) Jesus commenced His mission toward the cross (when He would die the death of the servant (in the servant's stead) and entered the desert to be tempted of the devil.
The Witness of John
6There came a man who was sent from God. His name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that through him everyone might believe. 8He himself was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. 11He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God.
The Word Became Flesh
"Whether baptismal regeneration or baptismal remission, it still comes down to salvation by water baptism, which negates salvation through faith, not works. (Acts 15:7-9; 26:18; Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..). "
You are fooling no one.
Wansvic is by no means pushing "salvation by water baptism". He is simply stating the clearly evident meaning of Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Mark 1:4, Mark 16:16 etc. That water baptism is commanded for the remission of sins, hence faith alone can not be the sole requirement for the forgiveness of sins.
You are simply pushing faith alone regeneration theology and attempting to use one verse to negate another. Striving to use a general statement to void a more definitive statement is bad grammar.
If faith alone theology were true, at least one verse would be written in a definitive matter.
There is only one verse in the Bible that uses faith alone in a definitive tone and that is James 2:24.
You are fooling no one.
Wansvic is by no means pushing "salvation by water baptism". He is simply stating the clearly evident meaning of Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Mark 1:4, Mark 16:16 etc. That water baptism is commanded for the remission of sins, hence faith alone can not be the sole requirement for the forgiveness of sins.
You are simply pushing faith alone regeneration theology and attempting to use one verse to negate another. Striving to use a general statement to void a more definitive statement is bad grammar.
If faith alone theology were true, at least one verse would be written in a definitive matter.
There is only one verse in the Bible that uses faith alone in a definitive tone and that is James 2:24.
)
There’s also
“Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him,
and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”
Luke 3:21-22 KJV
just reading that then looking back to prophecy there’s a message of who Jesus is in his baptism and what happened there when he rose from the water it’s at that point in Jesus life that God speaks and declares “ this is my son in whom I am well pleased “ and then the spirit descends upon him and then he begins to preach the gospel and say “ the words I’m speaking are the words of God the words of everlasting life and truth , God the Father is One with me “
So what happened with Jesus at his baptism began the fulfillment of certain parts of prophecy about the messiah and salvation coming forth like this one
“Yet have I ( I haven’t yet ) set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: Be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, When his wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”
Psalm 2:6-12 KJV
Or
“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth;
I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench:
he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.”
Isaiah 42:1-4 KJV
Or this one which Jesus himself takes a prophecy of Isaiah and quotes it about himself and says this is being fulfilled right now before you
“And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah ( chapter 61).
And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?”
Luke 4:17-19, 21-22 KJV
The whole ot is filled with important things about Jesus and the gospel like these and the others in the thread
You are fooling no one with your OXYMORON. First you say that Wansvic is by no means pushing salvation by water baptism, then you contradict yourself by saying that water baptism is commanded for the remission of sins. Well if water baptism brings remission of sins that would mean man is saved by water baptism. You can't have it both ways. The verses you cite on water baptism "on the surface" only appear to teach that man is saved by water baptism.
Properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine has nothing to do with bad grammar and everything to do with hermeneutics. The multiple passages of scripture that I cited below are definitive statements.
The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture 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; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
*Now you don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus baptism? Plus works? NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone.
Yet James is talking about an empty profession of faith/dead faith (James 2:14) that remains alone - "barren of works" and not faith that "trusts in Jesus Christ" alone for salvation. (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9) God imputes righteousness apart from works. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to saves believers. (Romans 3:24-28) No supplements needed.
Properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine has nothing to do with bad grammar and everything to do with hermeneutics. The multiple passages of scripture that I cited below are definitive statements.
The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture 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; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
*Now you don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus baptism? Plus works? NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone.
Yet James is talking about an empty profession of faith/dead faith (James 2:14) that remains alone - "barren of works" and not faith that "trusts in Jesus Christ" alone for salvation. (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9) God imputes righteousness apart from works. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to saves believers. (Romans 3:24-28) No supplements needed.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
See posts #4, #48, and #386.
water baptism in Jesus' Name. - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
water baptism in Jesus' Name. - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
water baptism in Jesus' Name. - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
James is not using the word "justified" in James 2:24 to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous.
James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God. (Romans 4:2-3)
In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaioo" #1344 is:
1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
In Matthew 12:37, we read - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." This is because our words (and our works) reveal the condition of our hearts. Words/works are evidence for, or against being in a state of righteousness.
God is said to have been justified by those who were baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29). This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God IS righteous. Notice that the NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right.." The ESV reads, "they declared God just.." That is the "sense" in which God was "justified." He was shown to be righteous.
Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified/vindicated/shown to be right by her deeds.
water baptism in Jesus' Name. - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
water baptism in Jesus' Name. - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
water baptism in Jesus' Name. - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
James is not using the word "justified" in James 2:24 to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous.
James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God. (Romans 4:2-3)
In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaioo" #1344 is:
1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
In Matthew 12:37, we read - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." This is because our words (and our works) reveal the condition of our hearts. Words/works are evidence for, or against being in a state of righteousness.
God is said to have been justified by those who were baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29). This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God IS righteous. Notice that the NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right.." The ESV reads, "they declared God just.." That is the "sense" in which God was "justified." He was shown to be righteous.
Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified/vindicated/shown to be right by her deeds.
Definitive is not derived from the number of verses but the conclusive manner in which the verses are written.
Example:
And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him. (John 9:38) This verse is true but it is not as definitive as:
We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God. (John 6:69) This verse states that we must not just believe but believe that He is Lord. But this verse is not as definitive as:
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9) This verse states that we must believe that He was raised from the dead and confess His Name.
All of these verses are true but each one is more encompassing then the one before. If faith alone regeneration theology were true then faith as the sole requirement for salvation verses should be easy to find. But these verses do not exist.
I have noticed that those who teach faith alone regeneration theology seem to forget the alone part in their proof texts.
Example:
And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him. (John 9:38) This verse is true but it is not as definitive as:
We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God. (John 6:69) This verse states that we must not just believe but believe that He is Lord. But this verse is not as definitive as:
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9) This verse states that we must believe that He was raised from the dead and confess His Name.
All of these verses are true but each one is more encompassing then the one before. If faith alone regeneration theology were true then faith as the sole requirement for salvation verses should be easy to find. But these verses do not exist.
I have noticed that those who teach faith alone regeneration theology seem to forget the alone part in their proof texts.
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.
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.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I won't get deep into this, as I think that Cameron143 answered well enough. If you think that good grammar leads to something being "definitive", well okay. As for me, I am less interested in how a sentence is constructed and look more to the person saying it... God, He is trustworthy and definitive.
-
1
- Show all
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.
Thanks for listening,
Wayne
Thanks for listening,
Wayne
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 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