The conversion of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16.
- Thread starter Beckworth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Since we are not under the Levitical Law any more (because of Jesus' sacrifice) a Levitical priest does not have to baptize us. So no, it's not the same.
We do not get dipped in water to follow in His footsteps. Unless you think everyone's path eventually leads the death on a cross, there are many things Jesus did that were His alone to accomplish.
We do not get dipped in water to follow in His footsteps. Unless you think everyone's path eventually leads the death on a cross, there are many things Jesus did that were His alone to accomplish.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
A lot of people uses Acts 16:31 to teach we are saved by faith alone to negate the necessity of water baptism. Does this verse teach that? Let’s see…
If someone was wanting to become a Christian and I tell them to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” and that’s all I tell them, would they know anything about Jesus other than He was the Lord?
No, they would not. In other words, in order to know about Jesus to believe on Him I would have to speak the word of the Lord to that person for them to know who Jesus is and for them to have faith in Jesus.
Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer AFTER they told him to believe on Jesus (Acts 16:32).
Why did they do this for if he was already saved?
The reason they did this is so he would understand and have faith. Romans 10:17 teaches faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Now, once that happened, what did he and all his end up doing?
They got baptized (v 33). That’s in perfect harmony with Mark 16:16. They believed and was baptized to be saved.
So going back to verse 31, when Paul and Silas told him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, we see in verse 34 that he believed in God with all his household. But was he and his household said to have believed in God with all his household BEFORE or AFTER he was baptized?
If he was saved in verse 31, then why was he not rejoicing having believed in God with all his household? It wasn’t until AFTER they were baptized that it says he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (v34).
So putting this together:
1) He was told to believe in Jesus (v31).
2) He and his household heard the word of the Lord spoken (v32)
3) After hearing the word he had faith due to hearing the word (Romans 10:17)
4) Then he and all his got baptized (v 33)
5) It was AFTER he got baptized that he rejoiced having BELIEVED in God with all his household (v34).
We learn from Acts 16:34, that believing in God, is to be baptized. To believe on Jesus (v 31) is to be baptized.
If someone was wanting to become a Christian and I tell them to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” and that’s all I tell them, would they know anything about Jesus other than He was the Lord?
No, they would not. In other words, in order to know about Jesus to believe on Him I would have to speak the word of the Lord to that person for them to know who Jesus is and for them to have faith in Jesus.
Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer AFTER they told him to believe on Jesus (Acts 16:32).
Why did they do this for if he was already saved?
The reason they did this is so he would understand and have faith. Romans 10:17 teaches faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Now, once that happened, what did he and all his end up doing?
They got baptized (v 33). That’s in perfect harmony with Mark 16:16. They believed and was baptized to be saved.
So going back to verse 31, when Paul and Silas told him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, we see in verse 34 that he believed in God with all his household. But was he and his household said to have believed in God with all his household BEFORE or AFTER he was baptized?
If he was saved in verse 31, then why was he not rejoicing having believed in God with all his household? It wasn’t until AFTER they were baptized that it says he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (v34).
So putting this together:
1) He was told to believe in Jesus (v31).
2) He and his household heard the word of the Lord spoken (v32)
3) After hearing the word he had faith due to hearing the word (Romans 10:17)
4) Then he and all his got baptized (v 33)
5) It was AFTER he got baptized that he rejoiced having BELIEVED in God with all his household (v34).
We learn from Acts 16:34, that believing in God, is to be baptized. To believe on Jesus (v 31) is to be baptized.
-
1
- Show all
Compare with John 3:16, 5:24, 6:40, 8:40, 10:28, Romans 5:8, Romans 10.
Baptism is in verses that includes belief because there was no question then, that after belief, baptism is given. But there are many verses that do not include baptism in the book of John and Romans plus others.
Acts is interesting because it has baptism as a figurative thing.. where its not water baptism..and it does have water baptism.. and it has belief on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Added to this is whether its a corporate gathering as the subject or an individual.
What happens to a whole group is different to an individual in the work of the Holy Spirit.
The prime example of the different contexts is Acts 19.
Paul finds disciples who had believed.. who were taught by Apollos.
They were asked if they had received the Holy Spirit... as a whole group.....
This isn't the same thing as an individual receiving the Holy Spirit.
Paul didnt have to get them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He asked how they were baptized.. and it was unto Johns baptism.. which was prepatory for the New Covenant.
They were baptized again under the New Covenant, then they could... as a whole group.. receive the Spirit.
They would have already received the Holy Spirit as individuals..seeing they were disciples who had believed.
They hadnt heard whether there be a Holy Spirit..that doesn't mean when they believed the Holy Spirit didnt seal them individually.
Baptism is in verses that includes belief because there was no question then, that after belief, baptism is given. But there are many verses that do not include baptism in the book of John and Romans plus others.
Acts is interesting because it has baptism as a figurative thing.. where its not water baptism..and it does have water baptism.. and it has belief on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Added to this is whether its a corporate gathering as the subject or an individual.
What happens to a whole group is different to an individual in the work of the Holy Spirit.
The prime example of the different contexts is Acts 19.
Paul finds disciples who had believed.. who were taught by Apollos.
They were asked if they had received the Holy Spirit... as a whole group.....
This isn't the same thing as an individual receiving the Holy Spirit.
Paul didnt have to get them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He asked how they were baptized.. and it was unto Johns baptism.. which was prepatory for the New Covenant.
They were baptized again under the New Covenant, then they could... as a whole group.. receive the Spirit.
They would have already received the Holy Spirit as individuals..seeing they were disciples who had believed.
They hadnt heard whether there be a Holy Spirit..that doesn't mean when they believed the Holy Spirit didnt seal them individually.
-
1
- Show all
In John 3:5, Jesus said born of water and the Spirit. He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit and He also did not say unless one is water baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. In the very next chapter, Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14 and and He connects living water with eternal life in John 4:14. Also, in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water (which reaches the heart) and spiritual cleansing.
If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.
Also "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)
So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.
Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*
Notice the word drink(s) in (John 4:10,14; 7:37). In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. See the connection?
Being buried with Christ through baptism into death and raised to walk in newness of life is signified but not procured in water baptism. As Greek scholar AT Robertson said - a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.
Romans 6 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.
Also "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)
So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.
Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*
Notice the word drink(s) in (John 4:10,14; 7:37). In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. See the connection?
Being buried with Christ through baptism into death and raised to walk in newness of life is signified but not procured in water baptism. As Greek scholar AT Robertson said - a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.
Romans 6 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
-
1
-
1
- Show all
There is nothing in any of the scriptures you asked us to “compare” that says baptism is not necessary. Scripture does not CANCEL out other scriptures. You don’t disprove the necessity of baptism by using a scripture that says faith saves us -John 3:16- or that confession is necessary. Such as Roman’s 10. You are “pitting” one scripture against another. Does that not seem wrong to you? Do you know about Psalns 119:160 that says ALL of God’s word is TRUTH? It says the “SUM” of God’s word is truth. John 3:16 does not teach that baptism does not save us. It’s not even talking about baptism. IF John 3:16 is “proof”“that baptism does not save us, then Acts 2:38 is “proof” that “faith” does not save us. What was Peter’s answer to the Jews when they asked “WHAT MUST WE DO ???? He said, “ REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED…”. He didn’t mention “faith” at all so (according to your logic) that means faith does not save us and is not necessary for salvation. If not, why not. That is not being HONEST with the word of God.
You get The “SUM” of something by ADDING IT ALL TOGETHER! I don’t understand why this is so hard for people to see or accept. So John 3:16 teaches us to believe; and Romans 10:10 teaches us to CONFESS; and Acts 2:38 teaches us to REPENT and be BAPTIZED. We do what God tells us to do in Psalns 118:160 and we ADD. all of God’s words together—we take the “SUM” of what God has said and we have the TRUTH and we obey All of it. WE don’t leave out 1Peter 3:21 that says BAPTISM SAVES US just because another verse says faith is necessary. Maybe you should compare John 3:16 to Roman’s 10:10. One says we are saved by “faith” and one says we are saved by “confession”. Which one are you going to believe? Does John 3:16 CANCEL OUT Romans 10:10? Just because God says confession” is necessary does that mean “faith” is NOT NECESSARY? That is exactly what you do with John 3:16 and 1 Peter 3:21. When I say Baptism saves us, which is exactly what The apostle of Jesus Christ , Peter, Says, I get tons of people. Who disagree with that and start using scriptures like Ephesians 2:8-9 or like you—John 3:16, to “ refute and “PROVE” that baptism does NOT save us. WHAT ARE YOU DOING??? You are using scripture to refute scripture. Instead of believing everything God says, instead of treating all of God’s word as “truth”, you are picking out what you like and denying parts of God’s word that you don’t like. It’s all from the same source— GOD. God not only spoke John 3:16, He also spoke 1 Peter 3:21, and Acts 2:38, and Acts 22:16 and Jesus Christ spoke Mark 16:16. It’s ALL TRUTH! Every bit of it. So you cannot use scripture to disprove other scripture. You CAN use scripture to disprove man’s ideas or the commandments of men. But 1 Peter 3:21 is very, very plain. When I say baptism saves us, that is not MY idea, I am quoting God.
your whole “take” on belief and baptism is nothing like what Jesus says in Mark 16:16. Jesus said, “He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved. Jesus places salvation AFTER baptism. You place salvation BEFORE baptism. Big difference between what Jesus taught and what you are teaching. In fact, you are teaching the OPPOSITE of what Jesus says. Obviously, we need to make this easier for you to understand what Jesus said. So, we know that 1+1=2, right? Jesus said, “belief + baptism = salvation.” That’s like 1 (belief) + 1 (baptism) = 2 (salvation). Now is that what YOU are teaching? No. Your equation looks like this: 1 ( belief) — 1 ( baptism) = 2 ( salvation. So you are saying 1 — 1 = 2. WRONG ANSWER. YOU are saying 1 = 2. ( faith only) = salvation. WRONG! That is NOTHING like what Jesus is saying. So I am sorry for you, but I cannot accept what you are teaching because it is obviously FALSE DOCTRINE. And I have another very clear scripture from God’s own words that we are NOT SAVED BY FAUTH ONLY. James 2:24. That scripture is from God, too. Put it all together; take the “SUM” of God’s words. All SCRIPTURE IS TRUTH AND IS TO BE BELIEVED.
I know you or someone else is going to come back with the second part of Mark 16:16 that says He that doesn’t believe is condemned. And they say that doesn’t say he that doesn’t believe and is not baptized is condemned. So they try to use this to “prove” that baptism is not necessary — even though Jesus Himself has already said that it is in the first part of the verse. Do you know how confusing this would be for us to understand if in the same verse, Jesus taught that baptusm saves us and that baptism does NOT save us?? What kind of DIETY does that? Could we trust a God like that?? No . It would make no sense at all. Fortunately, for us, God has not done that. I’m glad God gave us credit for having enough sense to understand that a person who does not “believe” in Jesus Christ would NEVER ever be baptized into Him. Why would he?? That’s so ridiculous that God did not think He needed to point that out to us. In fact, just listen to how silly it sounds to say, “ He that believeth not and is not baptized…. It’s like saying, “ he that eats food and swallows it shall live; but he that does not eat food shall die.” Do I need to say “ He that does not eat food and does not swallow the food that he does not eat, shall die”, in order for you to understand the concept here? I surely hope not. If so, then don’t worry about it, you are safe.
-
1
- Show all
I would say Jesus is the truth, the way and the life and I would be very cautious with any work that adds to what He accomplished on our behalf.
And James is not speaking about saving faith so that is real problem for the FAITH++++ crowd.
Perhaps it is not summing up scripture, but, rightly dividing it, like in knowing what pertains to the plan of salvation, what is descriptive, what is prescriptive, what pertains to sanctification, what pertains to discipleship and fellowship etc.,
And James is not speaking about saving faith so that is real problem for the FAITH++++ crowd.
Perhaps it is not summing up scripture, but, rightly dividing it, like in knowing what pertains to the plan of salvation, what is descriptive, what is prescriptive, what pertains to sanctification, what pertains to discipleship and fellowship etc.,
