So, you appear to be discounting the translation/s that render it "by" as though they are not valid translations.
water baptism in Jesus' Name.
- Thread starter heartwashed
- 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.
I have not applied eisegesis here. I am comparing scripture with scripture (the hermeneutic found in 1 Corinthians 2:13).
Yes, it is not the removal of dirt from the flesh; however it does wash away our sins (Acts 22:16).
I don't consider myself Oneness (I attend a Calvary Chapel); however I have been baptized in Jesus' Name.
What is your take on a comparison between Acts 2:39 and Romans 8:30?
In that, those who are not called have not been predestinated and will not be justified and therefore glorified.
But that in Acts 2:38-39, there is a conditional promise given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.
The fruit of that is the thief affirming that Jesus was coming into a kingdom when both of them were obviously dying.
Sometimes the fruit of being baptized does not present itself immediately.
1 Peter 3:20-21 says,
1Pe 3:20, Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
In context, baptism doth also now save us; and v.20 reveals to us (as the context is salvation) that it is water baptism that saves us.
There are those who, when they read the kjv, don't like its rendering, so they heap to themselves teachers in the translators of other versions, to tell them what their itching ears want to hear, in fulfillment of the prophecy of 2 Timothy 4:3.
And even with the rendition of being saved "through" water, it does not in any way nullify the fact that it is relating "water" in v.20, to "baptism" in v.21.
A work of righteousness is something like giving alms to the poor.
Baptism in Jesus' Name is not a work, period (although God performs the work of salvation...remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost...in those who receive the ordinance). It is a point of contact for faith; a means by which we obtain a promise.
So, are you saying that Peter was being disobedient to Jesus when he baptized in His name in Acts 2:38?
Paul only baptized Gaius, Crispus, and the household of Stephanas, in Corinth, in context; and he gives this as a note to the fact that he was not sent to baptize.
I will say that I am not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel; for I cannot easily baptize anyone over the internet.
Nevertheless I preach the doctrine of baptisms as a basic tenet of the faith (Hebrews 6:1-3).
And it should also be clear that there were many who were actually baptized in Corinth (Acts 18:8); even under Paul's ministry.
How is that possible if Paul only baptized Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas?
Because Paul utilized the same tactic as did Jesus in John 4:1-2...
he did not baptize himself but had his disciples do the baptizing for him.
No, the blood is not in the water. "Through His blood" (as in Colossians 1:14) is a reference not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we contact it in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16). We do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the water and Roman Catholics do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the wine either.
I'm simply discounting your eisegesis that Noah and his family were literally saved "by" the water instead literally saved by the ARK. Hebrews 11:7 - By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Noah and his family were saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of salvation. So the only sense in which they were saved by the water is they were brought safely through the water. 1 Peter 3:20 (Amplified Bible) - who once were disobedient, when the great patience of God was waiting in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons [Noah’s family], were brought safely through the water.
You have applied eisegesis here and you are not comparing it with the totality of scripture (Luke 24:47; John 3:15,16,18; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..) but simply with one pet verse. 1 Corinthians 2:14 - But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So being baptized 'in Jesus name' (in of itself) is supposed to be a magical formula for salvation? Those who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the wrong formula and people who are not baptized by the specific formula 'in Jesus name' will not be saved according to you?
Romans 8:30 is in regards to the 'effectual call' and not the general call. (Matthew 22:14)
That's all good and well, but why did you stick water baptism in the title? They are not the same thing. Water baptism is simply a ritual of remembrance (sacrament) that is performed later on. Salvation is based soley upon faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
So the fruit following conversion and water baptism is being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus?
Again, highly unlikely. Those who try to get around the fact that the thief on the cross was saved through faith without having the opportunity to be being water baptized afterwards will either try to assume that the thief was already baptized or that baptism was not necessary for salvation under the OT mandate because Jesus had not died yet. The thief was obviously converted while still hanging on the cross and died that very same day.