Results 161 - 180 of 567
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: disciplerami Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Is this about water baptism at all? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77448 | ||
Sniper, I thought about this issue for a long time after reading Hiscox Baptism Manual where it reads that church membership requires baptism. Those who follow this book (American Baptist, maybe others) believe that there are unbaptized saved, but they aren't members of the church. This is contrary to the Bible teaching. In the Bible, the saved and the church comprise the same individuals: you can't be in one without being in the other. Church equals saved and saved equals Church. |
||||||
162 | Is Mt 28:18 commanding water baptism? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77450 | ||
I have a question. Is Matthew 28:18-20 commanding the Apostles to administer water baptism? If so, Is Mark 16:16 a command to receive water baptism? If so, Is Acts 2:38 a command to receive water baptism? If not, then believers are commanded to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit was imparted at God's discretion, when and where God chose to pour it out, then it does not follow that all believers are commanded "Be baptized" into the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38 is talking about water baptism. I hope that helps. disciplerami |
||||||
163 | Those who call shall be saved | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77452 | ||
Acts 22:16 also shows how to 'call' on His name. 1 Peter 3:21 also, baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience. We are saved by grace through faith. Disciplerami |
||||||
164 | Is Mt 28:18 commanding water baptism? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77473 | ||
Greetings Ray, You are right, those verses I mentioned don't specifically say the word 'water', but that is the clear implication. By denying that 'water' baptism is the subject in the three passages I referenced, do you conclude that Holy Spirit baptism is the subject? If so, on what basis? Where in the same verses do you see anything about HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM? I can follow your line of reasoning and deny that Holy Spirit baptism is the subject. Your own logic refutes your implied point, doesn't it? Where does it say anything about 'baptism' in the following verses you reference? Matthew 7:11, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him." Luke 11:13, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the *holy *spirit to those who ask Him?" The Holy Spirit cannot be measured out, but the Holy Spirit can, Himself, be given as a seal, an earnest of our salvation (Eph 1:13,14). It is absolutely necessary that the individual have the indwelling Spirit in order to be saved. If he doesn't have the Spirit, then he doesn't have God (Romans 8:9-11). However, we know from 1 Corinthians 12 that God distributes the superntural gifts of the Holy Spirit as He see fit. Not everyone spoke in tongues, not everyone prophesied, etc. In fact, Paul's words to the Romans indicated that not all Christians had miraculous gifts, they were 'ungifted' (1 Cor. 14). In the book of Acts, until Acts 6, there is zero indication that anyone but Apostles had supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit [obviously, as I've stated already, every Christian had the non-miraculous indwelling]. See Acts 2:7,15,43; 3:6; 4:33; 5:12 (the only possible exception is what is said in Acts 4:31, but that is not definite. Obviously something miraculous happened, the place shook, as when Peter was miraculously delivered from prison, but it doesn't say that the Christians actually had any miraculous abilities). Chapter six changes when the Apostles lay hands upon the seven men chosen to do service. After that, the men had "power." Before the laying on of hands, they were very spiritual, but had no "power." Your effort to tie everything together by saying "we need to be washed with the word of God" does not fairly depict what is said. The salvation moment, the 'washing' comes throught the blood of Christ, when the Holy Spirit renewed, at the washing of water, which was received by commandment. The salvation moment is AT water baptism, BY grace, His blood, and by Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4; John 3:5). Thanks for the dialogue. Let's keep on searchering for the truth and we shall find it. God bless you, Disciplerami |
||||||
165 | Is Mt 28:18 commanding water baptism? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77482 | ||
Searcher56 agreed with me at one time. See his 4 comment at this July 10, 2001 post: ID#9136 Searcher56 lumped all of the Baptism verses in Acts together, along with the 1 Cor. 1:13 which I'm sure he believes is water baptism!?. So maybe he isn't the one you want to be lining up with, since it is pretty hard to tell where he stands on this issue. Maybe you can clear that up with him. Maybe he is just being argumentative now, or maybe he was just being argumentative then. Maybe it is just a fun exercise for him. Maybe he is honestly confused, mistaken, or maybe he has changed. I don't know, but I do know that searchering for the truth requires consistency. Let me know YOUR thoughts. Thanks, Disciplerami |
||||||
166 | Is this about water baptism at all? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77492 | ||
Greetings Tim, I disagree because proper hermeneutics allows that God teaches us both explicitly and implicitly. Every direct command of God may have an equally valid implied command. Wisdom dictates that every and everyone's example are not to be followed, but we look for the approved ones. For example, we follow the pattern of 'unleavened' bread and 'fruit of the vine' because that is the example. Are there other types of bread and beverage we might choose to use? Sure, but not if we follow the principle that God's will is learned through Commands, Examples, and Necessary Inference [if God implies, we may safely infer]. If you do not adhere to this principle, then you would not object to serving cola and pizza as the elements. The immediacy of New Testament baptism, coupled with the purpose assigned to it by God [remission of sins, wash away thy sins] gives strong evidence that baptism today should be administered quickly. If we do not follow this pattern, what strange this might we invent? God bless, Disciplerami |
||||||
167 | Is this about water baptism at all? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77509 | ||
Dear Ray, To those who don't see "water" but do see "Holy Spirit baptism, I say I would like to see what happens in these churches where the preacher gets up and "commands" that the people be baptized by the Holy Spirit! If we "take away" from the clear teaching of water baptism and demand that people be baptized in the Holy Spirit, we are commanding someone to do what is not in their conrol. Many who are untaught or unstable look at verses that are clearly 'water baptism verses, and say, "can't be talking about baptism 'cause I don't see the word 'water.'" But no matter, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, will see. "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear." Others will keep on searchering and will not see. God bless you in your search for truth. Disciplerami |
||||||
168 | Is this about water baptism at all? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77520 | ||
Hi Justme, Thanks for sharing personal stuff. This is a difficult issue because no offense is meant and because I have no right to challenge what your wife was thinking at the young age of 5. Let me address the question this way. Because baptism is not a rite [a rite, as I understand it, has power in and of itself, like circumcision, infant baptism, Catholic Mass] as I understand it, relates to ritualistic observance, , but more a demonstration of faith, the person who is receiving it should be doing it with an understanding of the Gospel (God became flesh, virgin birth, sinless perfection, death, burial, resurrection, unmerited favor) so that the faith is truly in the work of God and not in: PARENTS, THE ONE BAPTIZING, THE WATER, THE ACT ITSELF, etc. Let me put it another way. Becoming a Christian, or disciple of Christ, is a decision to enter a special covenant with God. On earth we understand the gravity of entering covenants and we take them seriously. The marriage covenant is important, being a lifelong committment to another person. Now I'm not suggesting that you have to be marrying age to become a Christian, but you should be of age that you, yourself, are making the decision out of a love and faith for God. Does that make sense? I think I tend to go on for too long. So I'll stop there and you may respond if you like. God bless you and your family, Disciplerami |
||||||
169 | Is Mt 28:18 commanding water baptism? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77532 | ||
Hello, Let me understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Ray misunderstood your position? He said he agree with you, and said that he didn't see Mt.28 as a reference to water baptism. You do believe Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16 are talking about water baptism? Thanks, Disciplerami |
||||||
170 | Is this about water baptism at all? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77540 | ||
Yes. | ||||||
171 | Is this about water baptism at all? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77564 | ||
Dear Justme, I'm glad to write back to you. I have five children and I feel we, with God's help, have done a reasonably good job of raising our children. Our oldest is 22 and our youngest is 12. All of these children have reached an age where they know right and wrong. They at times have demonstrated attitudes that were sinful, they have done things that would be immoral in thought and deed. Although these children grew up praying to God from the earliest age, they still get to the ponit that they sin and realize just why Jesus died for them. They then choose to come to God for His salvation. They know that God is merciful and promises eternal life to all who obey his call. The turn to Him in repentance and ask to be baptized for the remission of their sins. Even at 12 or 14 years of age, they know what saves: the blood of Christ; and they know when God saves: at baptism. We teach them this because that is the pattern of the Bible. We give God the glory, Disciplerami |
||||||
172 | Is Mt 28:18 commanding water baptism? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77566 | ||
1 Peter 3:21 "And corresponding to that Baptism now saves you....it saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Thanks |
||||||
173 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77890 | ||
Acts 2:38 Grammar Corrected It has been stated several times on this forum that the Greek construction found in Acts 2:38 wrongly leaves the impression that 'repentance' and 'baptism' are necessary for salvation. ________ Morant61 has said, "Greek pronouns and verbs must match in both person and number. While it sounds nice to say that Peter is simply going from the group to the individual, doing so seperates the command to 'be baptized' from the promise of 'forgiveness of sins'. One cannot say in Greek, "Be baptized (singular) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins!" "Ignore the rest of the sentence for the moment. The above sentence in Greek would be impossible. The only imperative that can go with the promise of forgiveness of sins in the plural 'repent'." ________ Acts 2:38 reads: Repent ye (2nd person, plural) and be baptized (3rd singular) each one (HEKASTOS, see Thayer's notes) of ye (plural pronoun).... unto the remission of sins of ye (plural pronoun)... Morant61 says it is not proper to say, "be baptized (singular) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins." Thayer disagrees and offers several places where this is done when HEKASTOS (each, every) is used. "HEKASTOS, when it denotes individuality, every one of many, is often added appositively to nouns and pronouns and verbs in the plural number: Jn16:32; Acts 2:8; Lk2:3; Acts3:26; 1Pt4:10; Rev5:8; Rev20:13. (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, 1889, p.192) Here is a perfect example in Acts 2:3, "and appeared (3rd PLURAL) to them (autois, dative PLURAL) tongues as of fire distributing themselves (nominative PLURAL) and they rested (literal, 'it rested' 3rd SINGULAR) on each one (HEKASTOS, each, every) of them (genetive PLURAL). The "them/autois" of "there appeared unto THEM" in this Greek text is PLURAL. "EACH" is from the same word translated "EVERY ONE" in Acts 2:38. Did the tongues of fire sit on exactly the same ones to whom the fiery tongues appeared? The obvious answer is, 'yes!' In Acts 2:38, the group that is commanded to 'repent ye' is not more or less than the ones who are commanded to 'be baptized individually every one of ye (plural)...for the forgiveness of the sins of ye. Other examples of this construction are seen in John 6:7; Lk 4:40 "We ask: "How many more repented than were baptized?" "Every one of you" is added appositively to "Repent ye" and they both refer to the same ones."1 Good day, Disciplerami 1www_bearvalleycofc_orgZarticlesZbaptismEssential_html _ is for a dot Z is for a forward slash |
||||||
174 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77929 | ||
Dear Tim, Nice try yourself. What you state is the problem is NOT a problem. Thayer says so. Where you write: "The problem with Acts 2:38 is not that 'each of you' is used. The problem is that when 'each' is used the subject of the clause is now singular and all of the verbs and pronouns associated with that clause will also be singular." No, "all of the verbs and pronouns associated with that clause will" NOT also be singular. As Thayer says, "when it [HEKASTOS] denotes individually, every one of many, [it] is often added appositively to nouns and PRONOUNS and VERBS IN THE PLURAL NUMBER." What you claim to be a requirement is not such thing. You write: "The problem is that if the last clause were meant to be a result of obedience to the command to 'be baptized' then the phrase would have had to say, 'for the remission of your (singular) sins'." Again, that isn't what Thayer says. He shows that the HEKASTOS is used with PLURAL nouns, pronouns, and verbs. Your assertion that "your sins" be singular is in error. There is nothing ungrammatical about stating the text exactly as it is translated every time. Acts 2:38 Repent YE, and be [he/she/it] baptized every one of YE, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission [plural] of the sins of YE, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." The verb 'be baptized' is singular, matching HEKASTOS, which is used apositively with plural verbs and pronouns. Just as Thayer said it would. There are different ways HEKASTOS is used. Your examples don't apply to the present case since the word is NOT being used appositively with plural verbs and pronouns. In the examples you cite, yes, the verbs are in the singular. BUT YOU IGNORE THE EXPERT THAYER. He says "when it denotes individually, every one of many", as in "repent ye", "it is used appositively to nouns and pronouns and verbs IN THE PLURAL." The correct form is just as it is translated. The same number that are being commanded to repent and being commanded to be baptized. It says that 3,000 were baptized on that day--which is a mystery in itself for those who deny the purpose of baptism--and it therefore follows that 3,000 repented. The grammar is correct in Acts 2:3 and John 6:7 and the grammar is correct in Acts 2:38. The same rule applies. For John 6:7 you admit, "that 'each' (singular) may take (singular) a bite." This is identical to what is said in Acts 2:38: "be baptized" (singular) each one (singular)", then, as Thayer states, it is used alongside PLURAL pronouns and verbs. You have no case for insisting what Thayer says isn't necessary. Nice try. Good day, Disciplerami |
||||||
175 | Did Peter tell the truth? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77937 | ||
Search for ID 77890 and 77929 for response the argument that singular 'be baptized' is not connected to 'forgiveness' (singular) of the sins (plural) of Ye (plural). | ||||||
176 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77966 | ||
Greetings Tim, I'm not misunderstanding Thayer's point. The appositional phrase "be baptized each one of ye" relates to the same people as those who were commanded "repent ye." That's what an appositional phrase does. I understand his point all too well. Thayer clearly shows, contrary to what you've been asserting for two years, that HEKASTOS (each one) is used alongside the PLURAL nouns, pronouns, and verbs. As for your statement that "Thayer is not saying that a singular verb (I assume you mean 'be baptized') can take a plural pronoun as its antecendent.' No one said this. The plural pronoun is not antecedent, it follows the singular verb: baptistheito hekastos HUMON. The plural pronoun follows, no one has said it is antecedent. The antecedent of the plural pronoun is the singular verb. The singular verb is followed by HEKASTOS, emphasizing the entire YE. Acts 2:3 is a verse that follows the same pattern. The appositional phrase "it sat upon each of one them" has the singular verb, and HEKASTOS, and the plural pronoun (just as we see in Acts 2:38). This appositional phrase of Acts 2:3 corresponds to "there appeared unto them cloven tongues" having a verb 3rd person plural and plural pronoun. Same pattern as we find in Acts 2:38. The Greek is fine and the translation depicts exactly what it says in the Greek. MAIN POINT: The same group that 'tongues' appeared to are the same ones 'it lit' upon. And in 2:38, the same ones being commanded to repent and the same ones being commanded to be baptized. To others who are interested, read post 77890 and 77929 |
||||||
177 | Repent and Baptism for same number? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77968 | ||
Are the people being told to be baptized in Acts 2:38 the same number, no more or less, than those being told to repent? Are the same people that the Holy Spirit fell on in Acts 2:3 the same number, no more or less, as those whom it appeared to? |
||||||
178 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78007 | ||
Dear Tim, It's good to hear from you again. Let me ask a few questions of you: First, is Acts 2:38 translated accurately by, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins... (KJV) and by "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"? (NASB); and Second, Doesn't your argument demand that people have an understanding of the Greek in order to be saved? (because no English translations is translated as you say the Greek requires)? Please spare us any suggestions that there is no way of showing it because you quite ably depict your position in the English. Third, do you argue that salvation is by "faith only" or by "faith plus repentance"? You believe in the causal relationship between repentance and remission of sins? But You say in earlier posts, 6784, "Salvation is only through faith and grace, not works." 8755, "the vast majority of Scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is through faith alone" 8880, "Furthermore, the concept itself goes against everything Scripture says about salvation being through faith alone!" 19398, "Paul's agrument in Galatians is that all aspects of the Christian life are achieved through faith only," I curious to know which you believe: "faith alone" or "faith plus repentance"? It's interesting to note that the Scriptures refers to "faith alone" one time, and that, to say we are NOT justified by faith alone (James 2). But you repeat "faith only" many times. I'm curious to know what you believe. Have you changed your mind now that you argue a causal relationship between 'repent' and 'remission of sins'? To be consistent, you must admit that the Jews who believed were not yet saved since forgiveness follows repentance. Up until now you have insisted that baptism is not associated with remission of sins. Now will you not change course and disassociate repentance from forgiveness of sins? I hope not. If you believe that repentance precedes salvation, then you have more in common with me than do most who post on these pages :) Wishing you a Good day, Disciplerami |
||||||
179 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78009 | ||
Acts 2:8 grammar is like grammar in Acts 2:38. "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" In the Greek, "hear" is plural, while "each" [hekastos) is singular but it is used with "our own" which is plural. Tim (nice guy) Moran argues that this can't happen in the Greek, but Luke says it can. Luke does the same thing with Acts 2:38: Repent (plural) and each (singular) be baptized for the forgiveness (plural) of sins. Disciplerami |
||||||
180 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78010 | ||
That's a good argument if you believe in foxhole religion. But what if God says, "what about the million other times in your life that you had a chance to obey and didn't? I never knew you." What about the thief on the cross? Jesus didn't command baptism until after the resurrection. What significance has the thief on Cross to our discussion? Abraham and Moses were baptized either, but I don't know what bearing that has on this discussion. Help me out. Thank you for your thoughts. Disciplerami |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [29] >> |