Results 521 - 540 of 567
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: disciplerami Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
521 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 75775 | ||
Yes, the instance of Naaman is a good example of salvation by grace through faith. Healing is equated to God's grace and salvation. Dipping 7 times equates with the obedience of faith. But 1 Peter 3:21 is is even better. Peter even uses the word ANITUPON, antitype, and the water Noah was brought safely through the type. The baptism that saves was foreshadowed in the days of Noah. Incredible. People continue to say, but you can't be saved by works, you can't trust in works, God's salvation is a gift. True on every point. However, Noah couldn't be saved unless he got in the boat: he did it by faith. Now Noah might have been tempted to trust in the boat for his salvation, but not when he built it. He had never seen a flood, but trusted God. He built the ark when human reason would say it was ridiculous. When he got off of the ark, it is more likely that he credited God for his salvation and not his works. Same with baptism, it is a work of faith, but the faith is not in the work but in God. "YOU ARE SONS OF GOD THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS, FOR WHOEVER IS BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST, IS CLOTHED WITH CHRIST." - Gal. 3:26,27 The salvation is through faith in Christ, not faith in the watery grave. But being clothed with Christ (his righteousness?) occurs at baptism. |
||||||
522 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 75812 | ||
I agree, but I wouldn't use the word 'sacramental.' I have read your background, but do you agree that this is immersion as well? Good day. |
||||||
523 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77651 | ||
Greetings, No offense, but I think you are wrong twice. Commenting on 1 Peter 3:21, you say: "Corresponding to" or "symbolizes" (NIV) or "like figure" (KJV) is the Greek word antitupon. It means copy, a thing formed after some pattern, a thing resembling another, its counterpart. Baptism is a copy of or corresponds to something else. What is it? We need to look at the context." Wrong: Baptism is the 'antitype' and the thing he referred to in the previous verse is the 'type', the shadow, the symbol. Commenting on 1 Peter 3;20, you say, "Baptism is a copy of or corresponds to something else. What is it? We need to look at the context. I see two choices - the flood or the ark? Which saved Noah and his family? It was the ark. " You are wrong again: The antecedent is the 'water' they were brought safely through. I think it is an easy mistake to make, but the water has to be the 'type' of baptism. Noah and his family was baptized in water, a type of the antitype baptism which now saves us. You had the answer, but missed it. The water was a type of baptism, just as Moses passing through the sea was a type of baptism. Some were saved through it and other were swallowed up by it. Likewise, those who rejects Jesus' simple command to be baptized, will not be saved. You are so close to the truth but don't see it. You write: "The spiritual element associated with that water is what saved, not the water." How right you are. I couldn't have said it better myself. Here is the only problem you have, you keep denying what the Bible asserts: SALVATION HAPPENED AT THE WATER. Again, the spiritual element associated with the water is what saved, not the water. But the salvation happens AT the water. Good day. Disciperlami |
||||||
524 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77652 | ||
I like the way you put it. This is the very conclusion that I've come to. When I hear the command of God, I DO it. But I don't look for payment or reward for the work the way a Pharisee does. I do not even expect that the work is sufficient 'earn' me a place in heaven. I DO it because I know it is His will. I do it because he rewards a man who has faith in what he can't see. That's why is says baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience. Only a fool would believe that getting dipped 'in and of itself' could merit salvation. If you want to show God your faith, then go get baptized. He cares WHY you are doing it. God bless you Sniper, Disciplerami |
||||||
525 | Disciperlami, Did Noah's 8 get wet? NO | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77787 | ||
Dear jlpangilinan, Searcher56 can't be taken serious. He obviously doesn't study the Scripture, but reacts to whatever is said. The people of Israel WERE 'baptized into Moses' having water above and to the side (1 Cor. 10:1,2). Their baptism is a type of Christian baptism: which is Paul's point in the Corinthian letter. If Searcher spent a little more time studying before responding, he would recognize his error. With Noah in 1 Peter 3:20, the connection of water in Noah's day to water of baptism goes completely over his head. From now on, Searcherer56 will talk to the air. No responses to him. Thanks for the comments, Disciplerami |
||||||
526 | Disciperlami, Did Noah's 8 get wet? NO | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77800 | ||
Searchier56 disproves the need for getting wet. So, let me see if I understand your point? You are arguing that baptism isn't necessary because Israel and Noah didn't get wet? That would have to be your conclusion. Facts? What facts? Disciplerami |
||||||
527 | Disciperlami, Did Noah's 8 get wet? NO | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77801 | ||
I agree. Searcher56 protests too much. He doesn't realize that his argument isn't with me. He is arguing against Jesus Christ. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that believes not shall be condemned." (Mk 16:16). 1 Peter 3:21 says that Noah was brought safely through the water AND that baptism saves us....it saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Good talking to you. God bless, Disciplerami |
||||||
528 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78318 | ||
Dear Searcher56, You should do at least a little checking before you correct someone. The Lexicon says HO, base form HOS, is a relative pronoun, nominative, singular, neuter. And the antecedent of this relative pronoun is water. THEY WERE BROUGHT SAFELY THROUGH THE WATER. Water is the type of baptism, the ANTITYPE. I suggest you keep Searchering harder. Disciplerami |
||||||
529 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78346 | ||
Greetings, Thanks for responding. What does a relative pronoun do? It links one clause or phrase to another (as in 1 Peter 3:21). Examples include: WHO, WHOM, THAT, WHICH, WHAT. My Gingrich and Danker says of HOS, the base of HO, "relative pron. who, which, what, that..." Interestingly, they also say, "as a general rule, the relative pron. agrees in gender and number with the noun or pron. to which it refers (its antecedent)." p.583 Following this general rule of relative pronouns, what do we find is the antecedent noun to which it refers? HO, 1PT3:21, 'which', singular neuter Does the antecedent, water, match in number and gender, as Arndt and Gringrich said? Yes! HUDATOS, water, 1Pt3:20 is singular neuter. THEY MATCH. Just in case you are right, let's see if 'ark' matches the relative pronoun in gender and number? KIBOTOU, ark, 1Pt3:20 is singular FEMININE! "Ark" doesn't match the relative pronoun 'which' and therefore isn't the noun to which Peter refers back to. The antecedent of the relative pronoun HOS--the first word in 1 Peter 3:21 Greek text--is WATER, which happens to the last word of 1 Peter 3:20 in the Greek text. The 'ark' is not what CORRESPONDS to Baptism of vs 3:21. The water is! That means that the water that flooded the earth was the TYPE and Baptism is the ANTITYPE (translated 'corresponding to' in NASB). Therefore baptism was foreshadowed in the waters that Noah was brought safely through. Isn't that a kick in the pants, especially for those who say they don't see water in this verse? I know that some people deny that the Baptism passages have anything to do with water, but this one definitely does. We shall keep searching! Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
530 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78347 | ||
Greetings, Only one problem I see with your post. You insist that salvation came before the waters of baptism. However, there is a type/antitype statment being made here. Flood is the type/Baptism is the Antitype Noah saved through water/Baptism saves you Noah wasn't saved before he went through the water, he was brought safely through the water. AND CORRESPONDING TO THAT [AND THE ANTITYPE OF THAT WATER] IS BAPTISM WHICH NOW SAVES YOU...THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. We are not saved before baptism. We are saved by God's grace at baptism. Good day. |
||||||
531 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78348 | ||
Dear SRP, 'Filth of the flesh' is contrasted 'a good conscience.' He is pointing out that a cleansed conscience comes from baptism does. Baptism saves because--when it is done right, in faith, Col 2:12--God cleanses the conscience through the death of Christ. 'Filth of the flesh' is simply pointing out that it's not for cleansing dirt and grime from the body. Baptism isn't the Savior, Jesus is :) But Peter says 'Baptism Saves You.' Disciplerami |
||||||
532 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78349 | ||
Greetings, I think we probably have a lot in common, but I wonder if see any difference between a child being "baptized" and an adult being baptized? As I have tried to emphasize, baptism is effectual because God is pleased with the faith of the individual. What about infants? Is infant baptism effectual when the child has no faith? Disciplerami |
||||||
533 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78350 | ||
Repost, What does a relative pronoun do? It links one clause or phrase to another (as in 1 Peter 3:21). Examples include: WHO, WHOM, THAT, WHICH, WHAT. My Gingrich and Danker says of HOS, the base of HO, "relative pron. who, which, what, that..." Interestingly, they also say, "as a general rule, the relative pron. agrees in gender and number with the noun or pron. to which it refers (its antecedent)." p.583 Following this general rule of relative pronouns, what do we find is the antecedent noun to which it refers? HO, 1PT3:21, 'which', singular neuter Does the antecedent, water, match in number and gender, as Arndt and Gringrich said? Yes! HUDATOS, water, 1Pt3:20 is singular neuter. THEY MATCH. Just in case you are right, let's see if 'ark' matches the relative pronoun in gender and number? KIBOTOU, ark, 1Pt3:20 is singular FEMININE! "Ark" doesn't match the relative pronoun 'which' and therefore isn't the noun to which Peter refers back to. The antecedent of the relative pronoun HOS--the first word in 1 Peter 3:21 Greek text--is WATER, which happens to the last word of 1 Peter 3:20 in the Greek text. The 'ark' is not what CORRESPONDS to Baptism of vs 3:21. The water is! That means that the water that flooded the earth was the TYPE and Baptism is the ANTITYPE (translated 'corresponding to' in NASB). Therefore baptism was foreshadowed in the waters that Noah was brought safely through. Isn't that a kick in the pants, especially for those who say they don't see water in this verse? I know that some people deny that the Baptism passages have anything to do with water, but this one definitely does. We shall keep searching! Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
534 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78377 | ||
Dear Searcher, I'm not going to spend my time chasing rabbits because you don't want to deal with 1 Peter 3:20,21. What kind of work did you do to find these verses? Because John 1:15 doesn't make your case at all. You offer two, but there are three pronouns in that verse which refer to Jesus. All 3 are Masculine Singular! As an aside, I'm a curious type and wonder about things like how people came to choose their forum name. Yours is an interesting one, is there any particular reason you chose it? I like it because it suggest you have an active desire to find the truth. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. __________________ You say: "John 1:15 John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, " This (hos) was He of whom I said, 'He who (hos) comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" Let's see what JOHN 1:15 has for us: "John bore witness of HIM" AUTOU, personal pronoun 'Him' is Masculine, Singular "THIS [man]" HOUTOS, demonstrative pronoun 'This' is Masculine, Singular "was he WHOM" HON, relative pronoun 'whom' is Masculine, Singular ________________ See Searcher, on this passage, you are wrong. On the others I can't say. As Gingrich and Danker says, the pronoun usually follows the gender and number of the antecedent. I'll let you do your own work on the others passages you cite. Back to 1 Peter 3:20,21. You have proven nothing. I've shown how the grammar directly connects 'baptism' that saves you with the 'water' 8 souls were brought safely through. You have NO proof, no evidence, no reason to deny this; it is only your theological bias which keeps you from accepting the clear evidence. Searcher, all you have to do is read the verse. You don't have to be a scholar to understand it. Baptism saves you...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The salvation is not through works of merit, it is through faith in the grace of God. Wishing you well, Disciplerami |
||||||
535 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78387 | ||
"Did Abraham's faith exist before he offered Isaac up?" Obviously it did, he left his homeland when God told him to. God commanded, Abraham obeyed, God credited his faith as righteousness. "Jesus, seeing their faith...take up your pallet and walk" Disciplerami |
||||||
536 | Disciperlami, Did Noah's 8 get wet? NO | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78389 | ||
You are right. I detect from your words that when you obey, you obey from faith. Without the works, faith would be dead. But your faith is made perfect/mature/complete by the obedience to God's commands. God bless, Disciplerami |
||||||
537 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78392 | ||
Greetings Steve, If you are saying that baptism is the way to show one's faith in God, then I agree. Baptism, would typically be a demonstration of repentance -- but not necessarily, since some people just do the outward show. The only thing I want you to clarify is when are the sins washed away by the blood: before or during baptism? You asked what baptism is FOR? Good question. Baptism is FOR the remission of sins, just as Christ blood was shed FOR/WITH A VIEW TO remission of sins (Mt 26:26-28), and just as John's baptism was FOR the remission of sins. In John 3, after Jesus told Nicodemus the necessity of being born of water and the Spirit, the narrative speaks of John baptizing in the Aenon river and then a discussion on purification broke out. WHY? Because baptism was about being purified. Your statement "in neither case is the act of baptism the saving agent" is undeniable. I have never, in all my days, heard anyone suggest a thing. Have you misread something I posted? I'm curious :) Have a good day, Disciplerami |
||||||
538 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78393 | ||
Tim Moran, Disciplerami here. Thanks for weighing in on this subject. I wanted to register your comments here in the proper context since you only e-mail your correction to Searcher56. __________ You write: Greetings Disciplerami! Concerning 1 Pet. 3:20-21, I have just exchanged e-mails with Searcher56 on this subject. I told him that you were indeed correct about the pronoun referring back to 'water' rather than the 'ark'. There is one other remote possiblity - i.e. that 'hos' may be neuter in a special sense where 'hos' and 'toutos' can be used in the neuter and mean, 'that is'. In other words, it could function as an explanatory note. But, I have to research that possiblity much more before I would commit one way or another. The most likely view is as you said that 'hos' refers to the 'water'. Now, I still don't agree with your interpretation of the verse! ;-) But, you are correct on that point! Have a great day my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran _______ And you too, Tim Disciplerami |
||||||
539 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78398 | ||
You are bigger man than most. Disciplerami |
||||||
540 | Is this baptism by the Holy Spirit? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78406 | ||
I think what you are asking is worth considering. Consider the remarkable demonstration of God in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Baptism (Acts 2; 10): is that what Peter is talking about? I must admit that in all my days I've never been commanded to be baptized by the Holy Spirit! Do you command people to be baptized of the Holy Spirit? And does Holy Spirit Baptism save you? Can you be saved without Holy Spirit tongue speaking tongues of fire with accompanying sound of a violent rushing wind BAPTISM? Now we know Peter did command water baptism, "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ..." - Acts 10:48 I don't think anyone ever commanded someone to Holy Spirit Baptized. :) Seriously, to answer your question Searcher, I'm pretty sure the water of the flood is a foreshadowing of water baptism and NOT Holy Spirit baptism. I agree with your last line: "It was Noah's faith and obedience that saved him (Heb 11:7)." This is how we are saved through water baptism. The salvation is from God as we have faith and obedience. Have a good day. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ] Next > Last [29] >> |