The theif on the cross misconceptions

[John146]

Just one quick comment. The "by one Spirit" as per the KJV in 1 Cor 12:13, is a poor translation even though I personally like and read the KJV, but look at the original Greek in the interlinear, which says "in one Spirit". It does make a difference as some tend to use the KJV there to justify that somehow you receive the spirit prior to baptism, which is not the case as noted on Acts 2:38.

Acts 2:38 “what must WE do” is not even about salvation. It is a national repentance of Israel because they crucified their Messiah. Much different than the question, what must I do to be saved.

 

[DJT_47]

You would think if it were a must, it would be mentioned here in 1 Corinthians 15 where we find the gospel message in its most basic form. Never base a doctrine off the book of Acts. It is a transition book.

Also, you would think Paul would mention the necessity of water baptism somewhere in his letters. Nope.

Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief + baptism = salvation in JESUS words not in the book of Acts.

And baptism and it's pertinance is mentioned throughout the NT letters such as Romans 6, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Peter

I think you should lobby to have the book of Acts removed from the bible because of it being a so-called "transition book", whatever that means, and can't be relied upon as scripture.

 

[DJT_47]

You personally like to read the KJV until it goes against your belief system. “Let’s go to the Greek“ is just a way out.

Not a way out, just a way to confirm what's accurate. What about the mention of Easter in the KJV and only the KJV? Do you buy that, that it's accurate there, or should you look atcthe Greek word 'pascha' which means passover, not Easter? If you didn't read anything else to gain true understanding, you'd think Easter was correct, well, it's not.

 

[John146]

Not a way out, just a way to confirm what's accurate. What about the mention of Easter in the KJV and only the KJV? Do you buy that, that it's accurate there, or should you look atcthe Greek word 'pascha' which means passover, not Easter? If you didn't read anything else to gain true understanding, you'd think Easter was correct, well, it's not.

Easter is the correct word, yes. No more passover after the cross, therefore, pascha is correctly defined as Easter, Christ the Passover Lamb.

 

[DJT_47]

Easter is the correct word, yes. No more passover after the cross, therefore, pascha is correctly defined as Easter, Christ the Passover Lamb.

Pascha is passover not Easter. Look it up in the interlinear

 

[ResidentAlien]

Never base a doctrine off the book of Acts. It is a transition book.

I agree it's a transitional book and mostly historical, but not entirely. It must be carefully evaluated in light of other scriptures to find what is doctrine and what is history.

 

[DJT_47]

I agree it's a transitional book and mostly historical, but not entirely. It must be carefully evaluated in light of other scriptures to find what is doctrine and what is history.

I think we are really in agreement other than the "transitional" part of your statement which I don't understand.

The book of Acts is history as the bible is in it's entirety, but also too as is the bible in total, we must glean what is doctrine to be followed and applied from it, of which there is much in the book of Acts. It's also the book of Acts of the apostles (historical) but also referred to as the book of conversions (for our learning and doctrine), so that does provide a clue as to its value other than being simply a history book to be glossed-over.

 

[John146]

Pascha is passover not Easter. Look it up in the interlinear

Passover is not relevant after the resurrection...I looked it up in my KJV.

 

[John146]

I agree it's a transitional book and mostly historical, but not entirely. It must be carefully evaluated in light of other scriptures to find what is doctrine and what is history.

In acts, some receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Others receive the Holy Spirit when hearing the word preached. And yet others receive the Holy Spirit after being baptized. Not until Paul settles the matter for the Gentile believers is doctrine set. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is when one simply trusts the d,b,r for the forgiveness of sins, no water baptism necessary.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I think we are really in agreement other than the "transitional" part of your statement which I don't understand.

Acts of the Apostles documents the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant; that's what is meant by transitional.

 

[oyster67]

The thief on the cross misconceptions

I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's salvation by use (erroneously) of the thief on the cross as justification, as he was not baptized but yet saved by the Lord, which is true! BUT, the error in this is the lack of understanding of the scriptures. You must read and understand Hebrews 9:15-17 which clarifies why the thief on the cross was saved by Jesus without being baptized. Christ was still alive when this occurred meaning it was done while the old testament or covenant was still in effect; the new testament had not yet been established because Christ had not yet died. And since the Lord was still alive no one could possibly be baptized into Christ under NT salvation criteria. Baptism did not become a requirement as part of salvation until the new testament began which was after the death of Christ. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross no different than he forgave others during his earthly ministry, such as the woman caught in the act of adultery as recorded in John 8. Baptism should not even be an issue when discussing the thief on the cross, but unfortunately always is, but in error.

Hebrews 9:15-17

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

We are saved by the Blood of Jesus, not the water in the tub. The baptism that happens at Salvation is the Holy-Spirit Baptism, not the water baptism. When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, He was speaking of the first baptism, not tub-dunking.

 

[DJT_47]

In acts, some receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Others receive the Holy Spirit when hearing the word preached. And yet others receive the Holy Spirit after being baptized. Not until Paul settles the matter for the Gentile believers is doctrine set. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is when one simply trusts the d,b,r for the forgiveness of sins, no water baptism necessary.

Acts 2:38 disagrees with you or you with it.

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Grandpa]

In acts, some receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Others receive the Holy Spirit when hearing the word preached. And yet others receive the Holy Spirit after being baptized. Not until Paul settles the matter for the Gentile believers is doctrine set. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is when one simply trusts the d,b,r for the forgiveness of sins, no water baptism necessary.

I view water baptism by men as this;

Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

 

[DJT_47]

I'm pro-baptism myself, but it's still interesting seeing the reasoning behind some of this.

If your view is that children are sinless, what's your take on Rom 3:23's "all have sinned"?

I think your child-innocence argument covers the scenarios about children without baptism, but what about the quality of the ritual itself?

If the words in the service are wrong, or misspoken, do you still see this as a valid baptism so long as the intention was there?

Have sinned infers action. Sin must be committed. Neworn infants have not committed sin. Jesus was a newborn infant at one time. Was he guilty of sin or born with sin? Likewise with other newborn infants. They've not yet committed sin. And the bible says of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 19:14

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Jocund]

Have sinned infers action.

Covetousness is an example of a sin that does not require action. Many sins take place in the heart without the need for external action. Paul discusses some of this topic in Romans 7.

That said, I still think there is room for discussion on the topic of children and sin.

 

[cv5]

Acts 2:38 disagrees with you or you with it.

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Water dunking is as effective at removing sin as circumcision was. Or being born a great great great great great grandson of Jacob.

 

[John146]

Acts 2:38 disagrees with you or you with it.

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There are several different methods of baptisms in scripture, this is evident.
Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

After laying hands, not after water baptism.
Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Had the Holy Ghost but had not been baptized.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts is a dangerous place to set one's doctrine.

 

[Magenta]

Water dunking is as effective at removing sin as circumcision was.
Or being borna great great great great great grandson of Jacob.

According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood,
and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9:22

Baptism was a ritual cleansing of the priests enabling them for service, and a ritual cleansing
of those who had been made unclean somehow. Being ritually washed and cleansed by the
priests in no way cleansed anyone of sin, just like the animal sacrifices in no way atoned for sin.

 

[tourist]

Wow! This one has a new "flavor" to it. Very nice.

I can't believe someone hasn't discovered your work and offered you $$.

@Magenta is very talented for sure, in many areas including graphic design.

 

[Runningman]

The thief on the cross misconceptions

I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's salvation by use (erroneously) of the thief on the cross as justification, as he was not baptized but yet saved by the Lord, which is true! BUT, the error in this is the lack of understanding of the scriptures. You must read and understand Hebrews 9:15-17 which clarifies why the thief on the cross was saved by Jesus without being baptized. Christ was still alive when this occurred meaning it was done while the old testament or covenant was still in effect; the new testament had not yet been established because Christ had not yet died. And since the Lord was still alive no one could possibly be baptized into Christ under NT salvation criteria. Baptism did not become a requirement as part of salvation until the new testament began which was after the death of Christ. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross no different than he forgave others during his earthly ministry, such as the woman caught in the act of adultery as recorded in John 8. Baptism should not even be an issue when discussing the thief on the cross, but unfortunately always is, but in error.

Hebrews 9:15-17

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume the thief on the cross was not water baptized. Actually, I believe most people in Jerusalem and the Judean countryside were water baptized, during the time of John the Baptist's and Jesus' ministry, based off of what I've read in the New Testament.

I speculate that this fact may account for why water baptism isn't mentioned all that much in the gospels. People wrote things from their perspective and it may not have been necessary to mention water baptism too often if they knew the people they were talking to were already water baptized.

Hard to say and mostly just amounts to speculation. Conveying information through reading and writing is a rather limited medium. You're only going to know what I am telling you while the countless number of possible things occurring around me aren't even mentioned. That's typically why it's better to not "add to or take away" when talking about the Bible, or really anything in general.