Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72673 | ||
You ask 'is this clear?' No. But what an interesting paraphrase! And Acts 22:16 says, "Now why do you [singular] delay, arise [singular] and be baptized [singular], and wash away [singular] thy sins [plural], calling [singular] on his name [singular, I'm not sure of the point of all this grammar stuff, but it makes as much sense as your use of it]." It would be interesting to see the Tim Moran paraphrase of Acts 22:16. Seriously, you can do better than this: "If you repent (protasis), and since you have repented be baptized (apodosis), you will receive forgiveness of sins" (Loose paraphrase). Let me see if I have this right. The crowd was pricked in the heart and asked what to do. The apostles responded, "Repent for the forgiveness of sins, and because you have already repented, therefore you will be already saved because salvation is based on repentance alone. Now everyone go get baptized for no particular reason" [my paraphrase of your paraphrase] Am I getting the gist of it? Your explanation seems to be lacking a certain something. Your explanation is intended to take people's attention off of baptism, right? But Acts 2 says that 3,000 were baptized because they understoood Peter to say, "Repent ye, and let each of you be baptized,...for forgiveness of sins." But you say they didn't need to, right? By the way, you got one part right. The word "for" is from the greek EIS which is always prospective. Grammatically, 'forgiveness' would follow repentance. What you didn't get right is that repentance is made visible in an obedient faith seen in baptism. Frankly, I find the one about the thief on the cross to be a much better explanation for not being baptized [even though Jesus wouldn't utter a word about it until after the resurrection, Mt. 28:18-20]. Water doesn't save, works don't save, faith alone doesn't save, the preacher doesn't save, but I'll tell you what does: an obedient faith (Romans 1:5; 16:26) that gets in the water and trust in the atonement of Jesus Christ. Salvation is a gift that is received at a particular point in time. You say at the point of repentance, others say at the point of 'faith only', Peter says at Baptism (1 Peter 3:21), others say when you get sprinkled as a little bitty baby. Whose right? Something tells me you're not a translator for the Lockman Foundation [I learned that such sarcasm is acceptable after reading a number of post by the moderator]. Nothing personal. |
||||||
2 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Morant61 | 72711 | ||
Greetings Disciplerami! I noticed from your profile that we have quite a bit in common my friend! I have been a Christian for 32 years, married for 19, am the father of 5 children, and have been a preaching for 24 years (pastoring for 10). Allow me to state up front my friend that I would never discourage anyone from being baptized, nor do I believe that baptism is pointless. Christ commanded us to be baptized and that is enough for me! ;-) However, you are correct in your assumption that I don't believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. There is much that we could discuss in your post, but allow me to focus for now on Acts 2:38. The point of all the grammar 'stuff' is very important. Just like English, Greek has rules of grammar. A plural pronoun cannot be grammatically linked to a singular noun or verb. Thus, the command to 'be baptized' is parenthetical in Acts 2:38 and cannot be grammatically associated with the promise of forgiveness of sins, since the pronoun 'your' is plural. While you are correct that I am not a translator for the Lockman Foundation, I do have both training and experience in the Greek language. However, you don't have to take my word concerning Acts 2:38. Far better men than I have addressed this point. For instance, Dr. A. T. Robertson (one of the greatest Greek scholars of all time) said this about Acts 2:38: "Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ". In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mt 28:19." Source: Word Pictures of the New Testament If you would like to discuss some of your others points, I would be happy to do so. I would suggest first doing a search, as I have addressed many of these points previously. p.s. - Who is the moderator to whom you referred? Just curious! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72732 | ||
Dear Tim, It is obvious that repentance precedes baptism, but it is also obvious that not much time has to elapse before a man is at the point to say, "look ,water, what prevents me from being baptized." I don't see Robertson making baptism something that follows salvation. The conjunction of that verse gives equal force to both to the commands to 'repent' and 'let each one of you be baptized.' You cannot be forgiven without repentance, you cannot be saved without baptism. Now some people have been so conditioned against this concept that they follow with the charge that 'this man believes in works salvation.' This is bologna. Repentance, the 'complete change of heart and life' is a much greater work [of faith] that is the simple act of submitting to immersion. My salvation is assured me through the blood of Christ. As I walk in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses me from all unrighteousness. Every Christian understands that works salvation is impossible. But let's give God's command of baptism its due: when you are baptized into Christ you are baptized into His death....for if we are united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection. Baptismal water doesn't save, but it is at the baptismal water that God's grace saves. "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved", so said Paul and Joel. Peter told the people on the day of Pentecost how to do this. "Repent and let each of you be baptized." Ananias concurs, "And now why do you delay, arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, CALLING ON HIS NAME." Baptism, as a simple act of obedient faith, is a calling on God to receive His divine grace. Peter's epistle also concurs, "Corresponding to that, Baptism now saves [not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a clean conscience] it saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (my paraphrase). Baptism, according to 1 Peter 3:21, is your appeal to God for a clean conscience. Baptism is WHERE you first initially "call on the name of the Lord." Good day. |
||||||
4 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Morant61 | 72777 | ||
Greetings Disciplerami! Thanks for your response my friend! I would love to go on to other passages, but first I would like you to interact with my points about Acts 2:38. I noticed that in another post, you refered to my explanation as a 'mangling' of Scripture. Yet, all I did was apply simple rules of grammar to a text. Would you be so kind as to explain how I mangled the rules of grammar in this passage? Then, we can go on to other passages. One of my pet peeves about debates like this is that there is a temptation to skip the points actually being made and play Biblical ping pong, serving up one verse after another, without actually dealing with what any of them say. So, if I could summarize our positions on Acts 2:38. You seem to believe that both commands 'to repent and to be baptized' lead to the promise in the 'eis' clause - i.e. - forgiveness of sins. My contention is that this is not grammatically possible. The command to repent and the pronoun in the 'eis' clause are both plural in number, while the command to be baptized in singular in number. Thus, the pronoun in the 'eis' clause cannot be dependent upon the command to be baptized. So, would you please explain to me how I have 'mangled' the meaning of this text! ;-) I would be willing to agree with you assessment, if you can provide adequate reasons for it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||