Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | rferg | 57010 | ||
You use the text in Luke that the criminal on the cross didn't have time to be baptized so was he saved? I ask you this question...how many more examples can you give me when a person died and was not baptized in water? |
||||||
2 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 57012 | ||
Greetings again, Rferg, I've argued this topic over and over again at this Forum.. Would you like for me to bury you with Commentaries? Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | rferg | 57013 | ||
I would like you to bury me with the word of God, commentaries are from man and are swayed by the doctrine of the person writting them. Can you give me any other examples because I can give you many examples of when people heard the "gospel of Christ" preached they repented and were baptized immediately. If you can give me other examples other than the one time exception of the criminal on the cross with Christ I can search the scriputer futher for the truth myself. Thanks for your help! P.S. I am new at this, so don't get so impatient. I thought that this is what these forum were for was to learn from each other. |
||||||
4 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 57015 | ||
Yes, this Forum is here for us to learn from each other.. [The following article was taken from John MacArthur's "Grace to You" website, at http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm] (Part 1 of 2) "Is baptism necessary for salvation?" "No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation. In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26)." "© 2000 Grace to You" |
||||||
5 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | rferg | 57028 | ||
I know God didn't mean for this book to be full of confusion. He expected a child to be able to understand it. If this is true and we start at the "beginning" of the NT, which would be Matthew and read forward through the book of Acts (it doesn't take that long)the message you will find is after they heard the Gospel of Christ preached, and "believed" they repented and were baptized in water. This is repeated over and over as an example. Those who "believed" by the simple act of faith were baptized in water. JOhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. If, when you "believed" and are baptized in water, and at the time of emmersion you recieved the Holy Spirit (baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) you would be born again, now dead to sin and buried with him in baptism raised to walk in newness of life, born into the family of God and now a child of God, a new creation in christ, able to take communion with the Lord and abide on the vine, etc. why would you wait? This is how I see it. In verse 6 Flesh usually refers to the natural birth or sinful nature if I am correct, which would be referring to our physical birth from our mothers. If this is so, wouldn't the water in verse 5 refer to water baptism and not water and blood during natural child birth. In John 3:14 Why does it give the example of Moses lifting up the serpent referring to Num. 21:6 listed right after Jesus explaining to Nicodemus that he must be born again to enter the kingdom. In Num. IF they didn't look up they died, they had a choice and now through Christ so do we. If John 3:5 is not talking about water baptism what was the reason for the example. Then in John 3:16 it says For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotton Son, that whosoever "believes" in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. If you read this scripture alone it would seem all you have to do is believe but if you read from John 3:1 you will see that even though Nicodemus believed who Christ was (the Son of God)Jesus still told him he could not enter the kingdom of God unless he was born again JOhn 3:3. If you continue to read the entire chapter of 3 you will see that after darkness and light is explained in verse 22 they tarried and were baptizing and in 23 John was also baptizing in Aenon because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized. The entire chapter is about baptizing in water. In the book of Acts at Pentecost is the same example. REad 2:41 Lets go from here forward not in the middle of the NT we have had pleanty of examples by the time we get to Romans and 1 Cor. why does the meat of the doctrine need to be give over and over and over? |
||||||
6 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Morant61 | 57056 | ||
Greetings Referg! Good morning my friend! I'm not trying to be mean my friend, but you made some very unusual statments about John! Allow me to touch upon a few of them. 1) You wrote: "In verse 6 Flesh usually refers to the natural birth or sinful nature if I am correct, which would be referring to our physical birth from our mothers. If this is so, wouldn't the water in verse 5 refer to water baptism and not water and blood during natural child birth." Why? Verse six is simply a further explanation of verse five. Simply because physical birth is mentioned in verse six doesn't rule it out in verse five. 2) You wrote: "n John 3:14 Why does it give the example of Moses lifting up the serpent referring to Num. 21:6 listed right after Jesus explaining to Nicodemus that he must be born again to enter the kingdom. In Num. IF they didn't look up they died, they had a choice and now through Christ so do we. If John 3:5 is not talking about water baptism what was the reason for the example." Why did Jesus use the example of Num. 21:6? Simply because it was an example of what was going to happen to Him. Just as the pole was lifted up, so also Christ was going to be lifted up on the cross. 3) You wrote: " If you read this scripture alone it would seem all you have to do is believe but if you read from John 3:1 you will see that even though Nicodemus believed who Christ was (the Son of God)Jesus still told him he could not enter the kingdom of God unless he was born again." Where exactly does the Bible say that Nicodemus beleived that Jesus was the Son of God? Verse two says that he believed that Jesus was a teacher from God and that God was with him, but nothing in John 3 indicates that Nicodemus was a believer. So, of course he must be born again. Without salvation, no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. 4) You wrote: " If you continue to read the entire chapter of 3 you will see that after darkness and light is explained in verse 22 they tarried and were baptizing and in 23 John was also baptizing in Aenon because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized. The entire chapter is about baptizing in water." This is a major stretch. Verse 22 and following is a different account in a different location at a different time. One cannot read back into John 3:1-21 and say that baptism is the subject of the entire chapter. Baptism is never mentioned in John 3:1-12. If it were the subject, it would have been very simple for God to simply say, "You must be baptized....". But, He didn't! :-) The reason is simple - John 3:16 really does mean what it says. "Whoever believes in Him will never perish...." Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||