Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8880 | ||
Greetings Mel! Thanks for the input to the discussion! Allow me to briefly deal with the two passages you mention which deal with baptism (John 3:5 and Acts 2:38.) Then, I would like you to address two specific questions. As a preliminary, let me state once again that no one debates that baptism is important. It has been commanded by Christ for Christians. The only point being debated is whether or not baptism is essential for salvation. You, Sharp, and Ezekiel seem to be saying that baptism is essential to salvation - no baptism, no salvation. I, and the rest of the thread, are arguing that our salvation is not effected in any way by our baptism or lack thereof. With this is mind, let me address these two passages. 1) Acts 2:38: There are two points that I think argue against baptism being essential to salvation in this passage. a) There is a grammatical anomaly in this verse. The command to repent is a second person plural imperative - in other words a plural you. Unfortunately, there is no way in English to distinguish between a 2nd person plural and a 2nd person singular. To use the King James method of ‘you’ and ‘ye,’ the command here is ‘Repent Ye!’ The phrase ‘for the remission of your sins’ is also a 2nd person plural as indicated by both the definite article and the personal pronoun. So, obviously, the command to repent and the phrase concerning the forgiveness of sins belong together. However, the command to "be baptized" is a 3rd person singular imperative. This simply means that the phrase "for the remission of sins" does not go with the command to be baptized at all, rather it belongs with the command to repent. b) Secondly, the phrase "forgiveness of sins" is used four other times in Acts (5:31, 10:43, 13:38-39, and 26:18) and none of them mention baptism. If baptism is essential for salvation, why don’t all of these other verse include references to baptism? My answer is that there is no command in Scripture to be baptized for the remission of sins. The command in Acts 2:38 is a command to repent for the remission of sins, with a parenthetical statement thrown in that each one should then be baptized. 2) John 3:5: Concerning this passage, my first observation is that Christian baptism is not mentioned directly anywhere in this passage. In fact, it would be unusual for it to be mentioned, since Christian baptism hasn’t even be instituted at this point. Your assuming that "born of the water" means baptized. However, the context makes it much more likely that "born of the water" is a reference to natural birth in contrast to spiritual birth. Notice the flow of the passage. Jesus says in Jn. 3:3 that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. In verse 4, Nicodemus immediately assumes that Jesus must means that we have to re-enter the womb and be physically born again. Verse 5 is Jesus’ attempt to correct Nicodemus’ false assumption. In it, He says that we must be born of water and of Spirit. Is Jesus talking about baptism when He says "born of water" or is He talking about natural birth. I believe the later. Why? Because in verse 6, Jesus directly contrasts physical birth and spiritual birth by stating that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So, even if my interpretation of this passage is in error, you would have to assume that Jesus meant baptism when there is nothing in the context that even deals with baptism. Every text used in this thread to support the idea that baptism is essential to salvation has some serious difficulties attached to it. Furthermore, the concept itself goes against everything Scripture says about salvation being through faith alone! I have tried to answer your questions, and I will expand on my answers if you wish. Now, I would like you to answer two questions. 1) In Acts 10, Peter is preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius. As he was preaching, Acts 10:44 tells us that the Holy Spirit came upon all those who heard the message and they spoke in tongues, just as the disciples had in Acts 2. This is an important sign that God has extended salvation even to the Gentiles. Notice however what Peter says in v. 47, ‘‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." Were these people saved at this point? They had already been filled with the Holy Spirit! How could this be true if they were not saved? Yet, if baptism is essential to salvation, how could they have been saved without being baptized? 2) What about the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43)? Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise, today! Yet, he had never been baptized! Was he saved? I look forward to your response and I appreciate your kind spirit! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | melchizedekau | 8902 | ||
yes i understand that you are saying that you dont need to be baptised to be saved and that is true! But the truth is you dont need baptism if you die tomorrow, but what about the day after, and the day after that.The scriptures truly state that if we are baptised we are baptised into Christ.What you are saying is not lining up with a balance and rightly divided in scripture.to me you are saying once a baby is born it doesnt need food or clothes because you dont need food or clothes to be born. It is the walk in life that these things are essential ,to live just like Jesus. bless you .YIC | ||||||
3 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | Hank | 8904 | ||
Dear Melchizedekau -- What I hear you saying is that baptism is not essential to salvation. That, I hold, is quite truly taught in Scripture. But on the other hand you seem to intimate that one doesn't need baptism if he is saved today and dies tomorrow. You then pose this puzzling question, "But what about the day after, and the day after that?"....... Well, what about it?..... I interpret that to mean you are supporting some noton that salvation without bapism is a temporary matter -- somewhat analogous to granting a new driver a learner's permit until he has had sufficient time to fulfill the requirements for a permanent license..... You equate salvation to baptism with a baby being born naked and hungry. A naked and hungry baby is no less a baby, and his birth is no less a birth. If a baby is to grow and develop he will need food and care, to be sure, but his food and care, or the lack of it, do no alter the fact of his being born. In like manner, baptism and spiritual nourishment, or the lack of it, do not alter the fact that the sinner was saved through belief in Christ Jesus. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | melchizedekau | 8935 | ||
yes by George I think you have it. You do understand that a baby to grow must be fed and that our christian walk is a growing process. If we are to grow, what are we to grow into, or likeness of? Christlike isnt it? If then we are to be christ like we must take the same steps of Jesus. His first step was to be baptised in water, was it not? First with water and then the Holy Spirit. if we choose not to follow after Jesus doesnt that make us as an outcast or rebellious? if we are rebellious of Christs footsteps, who is the firstborn of many bretheren,what does that make us if rebellion is as wictchcraft? So the facts as we have it are; If we are saved by asking Jesus to save us ,then we are saved and will be allowed into heaven. But if we are to be conformed into the image of His Son, which is growing process,we must follow Jesus through the waters of baptism.bless you ! YIC |
||||||