Baptism

[Everlasting-Grace]

I love the way people pick and choose which commands we must obey. Some (they say) involve a form of works-based salvation while other don't. I'm a little confused. Where did the Lord categorize His commands into those which are works-based salvation and those that aren't?

if your doing a work (like water baptism) to recieve salvation or to maintain (not lose) salvation. it is a work of legalism

if your doing a work (like water baptism) because you are saved, out of Love to God and gratitude. it is a work of righteousness.

One is self righteousness, or of a carnal mind, trying to gain something for self.

the other is Gods righteousness, God working in you

even though they are both the same so called "work"

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

That is correct, 1 Cor. 12:13 is NOT Holy Spirit baptism.

I suggest that baptism with the Holy Spirit happened twice. Pentecost and Cornelius.

I suggest water baptism and salvation happen together. We are baptized into Christ where our sins are forgiven.
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

That is incorect.

No water is mentioned in 1 cor 12.

I suggest you look up the word Baptizo, and see what it really means (to immerse, to place into, to immerse in a fluid to dye a garment

 

[hornetguy]

I think the verse speaks for itself. Everyone who believes is already born again. You can’t fit anything else in there if you believe what this verse says.

If we are going to do "one verse salvation", then here's one for you....
1 Peter.....
" 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [p]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

Nothing else needed.... just baptism, and you are saved. Shaking my head.....

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

If we are going to do "one verse salvation", then here's one for you....
1 Peter.....
" 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [p]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

Nothing else needed.... just baptism, and you are saved. Shaking my head.....

I like this better

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should [c]not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

As for the passage you used. it does not remove filth (sin) from the flesh

it is the ressurection of Christ that saves

 

[hornetguy]

it is the ressurection of Christ that saves

Yes, I agree with that. Without the sacrifice of Jesus, we have nothing.

 

[JBTN]

Here's my problem with this. In the first version you changed in the name of to on the authority of. I don't disagree that in the name of means by the authority of, but by changing the words it makes it easier to change the meaning. Being baptized in the name of Jesus is without question water baptism.

The Greek word used here in many, but not all, of the oldest manuscripts is epi. Epi means on, not in. Onomati means a name, authority, or cause.

 

[JBTN]

If we are going to do "one verse salvation", then here's one for you....
1 Peter.....
" 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [p]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

Nothing else needed.... just baptism, and you are saved. Shaking my head.....

Look at it in P72 and Sinaiticus. There is a semicolon in both of them. They read something like this:

And you now an antitype saves: immersion not of the flesh, a putting away of filth, but of a conscience good the demand toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[JBTN]

Here's my problem with this line of thinking. In John 3 where Jesus is looking forward to His church He says, unless one is born of water and Spirit. Then when He sends out the apostles, He tells them to make disciples baptizing them in the name of Father, Son and HS. That baptism is clearly water. In the same conversation He says, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. There is zero evidence to suggest this is a different type of baptism and plenty to know it's water. Therefore it stands to reason that water baptizing them in the name of Jesus, absolutely by His authority, is how they are baptized into Christ.

We see exactly that on Pentecost. Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. We know this is water baptism because that is exactly what Jesus instructed the apostles to do days earlier.

I find it interesting that when people want to prove one becomes a Christian without water baptism, they never go to Jesus's instructions to the apostles on how to convert the sinner. Shouldn't that be the starting point. Nor do they want to look at the multiple conversions where the apostles did exactly as Jesus instructed.
Like here. Where there is zero question this is water.
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. Just as Jesus said, believes and is baptized will be saved.

If the water in John 3:5 is baptism then John 3:5 and 1John 5:1 are at odds with each other. There are other plausible meanings for the water in John 3:5. John 3:6 indicates that the water is in reference to our fleshly birth.

Nothing I said about Acts 2:38 conflicts with Acts 2:41. If they were immersed into Christ. That is still immersion. The same can be said for the Corinthians.

“For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1‬:‭17‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.1.17.ESV

 

[hornetguy]

Look at it in P72 and Sinaiticus. There is a semicolon in both of them. They read something like this:

And you now an antitype saves: immersion not of the flesh, a putting away of filth, but of a conscience good the demand toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Yes....
My comment was supposed to be a semi-sarcastic reply to people that take one scripture out of context and say "SEE! This is all you have to do!"

 

[turbosixx]

So you went to bible hub and did not notice a difference?

I went to bible hub. I did not see any greek references as to how the words were used.

repent - verb aorist, active, imperative, second person, plural

be baptized - verb, aorist, passive, imperative, third person, singular

shall recieve the gift - verb, future, middle, indicative, second person, plural

can you be honest and tell me why there is a difference here, and what it means?

I try my best to be honest, especially with myself. If I'm fooling myself, can I ever really know the truth.

As I said, I'm no scholar or english major. So from an "everyday" person perspective, it appears to me he is stressing the need for baptism. Going from everyone to every one of you, the individual. Which makes sense to me because Jesus instructed Peter to make disciples baptizing them in the name of Jesus.

And of all those Peter was preaching to, who were the ones to be added. Only those who were baptized.

 

[turbosixx]

The Greek word used here in many, but not all, of the oldest manuscripts is epi. Epi means on, not in. Onomati means a name, authority, or cause.

I've never looked at the Greek word for that. Interesting. It makes sense to me that name and authority would be the same. I wouldn't have a problem if it was translated authority as long as it was consistent. Being translated name is correct and probably makes it easier for most readers to understand.
I wholly believe the bible is written so that most people can understand it if we will just read what it says with our filters turned off. For example, today the way most Christians are indoctrinated, they can't accept this verse as it reads. This is how they see it. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[turbosixx]

If the water in John 3:5 is baptism then John 3:5 and 1John 5:1 are at odds with each other. There are other plausible meanings for the water in John 3:5. John 3:6 indicates that the water is in reference to our fleshly birth.

Nothing I said about Acts 2:38 conflicts with Acts 2:41. If they were immersed into Christ. That is still immersion. The same can be said for the Corinthians.

“For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1‬:‭17‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.1.17.ESV

I just hit me. Maybe I've been miss understanding you. Are you saying baptized "in the name of" Jesus is not water?

Based on the context, what is Pauls point in 1 Cor. 1:17?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I try my best to be honest, especially with myself. If I'm fooling myself, can I ever really know the truth.

As I said, I'm no scholar or english major. So from an "everyday" person perspective, it appears to me he is stressing the need for baptism. Going from everyone to every one of you, the individual. Which makes sense to me because Jesus instructed Peter to make disciples baptizing them in the name of Jesus.

And of all those Peter was preaching to, who were the ones to be added. Only those who were baptized.

Maybe I can help

a first person can not be related to a second person
a second person can not be related to a third person

plural words speak to a group of people

singular words speak only to a person

for this reason, the gift of the spirit (a 2nd person plural) was offered to everyone, who did the 2nd person command.

the 3rd person singular word (baptism) has nothing to do with the second person word.

Language forbids it.

so if your going to be honest with yourself as you claim. You will notice these basic things, and have your belief system fit these rules of language.

 

[JBTN]

I just hit me. Maybe I've been miss understanding you. Are you saying baptized "in the name of" Jesus is not water?

Based on the context, what is Pauls point in 1 Cor. 1:17?

If you look up the phrase “in the name of Jesus” where it appears in English versions and look back at the Greek text you will find that it is not always the same. Sometimes en/in is used, but you will also find epi/on and eis/into.

In Acts 19:5 eis is used:

“On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭19‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.19.5.ESV

If you know that in is really eis you see this differently. They were immersed into the authority of the Lord Jesus. And now this doesn’t sound like a water immersion anymore.

 

[turbosixx]

Maybe I can help

a first person can not be related to a second person
a second person can not be related to a third person

plural words speak to a group of people

singular words speak only to a person

for this reason, the gift of the spirit (a 2nd person plural) was offered to everyone, who did the 2nd person command.

the 3rd person singular word (baptism) has nothing to do with the second person word.

Language forbids it.

so if your going to be honest with yourself as you claim. You will notice these basic things, and have your belief system fit these rules of language.

Does the conjunction "and" put repentance and baptism together? What is the "third" person related to?

I'm 100% convinced that water baptism and the Spirit are related.
In Acts 19 Paul meets some believers who were accurately taught about Jesus but were baptized wrong. When Paul finds out they hadn't received the Holy Spirit, he only questions their baptism. He doesn't question what they were taught. He doesn't question if they truly believed. He doesn't question if they repented, he questions their baptism.
2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.”

If you continue reading, you will see Paul doesn't give them gifts of the Holy Spirit until he corrects their baptism and baptizes them in the name of Jesus. Just like we see in Acts 2. Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus and you will receive. Just like in John 3, water and spirit.

 

[turbosixx]

If you look up the phrase “in the name of Jesus” where it appears in English versions and look back at the Greek text you will find that it is not always the same. Sometimes en/in is used, but you will also find epi/on and eis/into.

In Acts 19:5 eis is used:

“On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭19‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.19.5.ESV

If you know that in is really eis you see this differently. They were immersed into the authority of the Lord Jesus. And now this doesn’t sound like a water immersion anymore.

So you're saying, baptized in the name of Jesus is not water baptism?

 

[JBTN]

So you're saying, baptized in the name of Jesus is not water baptism?

If you look further into Acts 19:5:

“On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭19‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.19.5.ESV

Ebaptisthesan is the aorist indicative passive form of baptizo. So, it indicates an action that has already occurred. When it says “On hearing this” and then uses a verb that indicates an action that has already taken place how would you view that?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Does the conjunction "and" put repentance and baptism together? What is the "third" person related to?

Yes,, that is why it says be baptised for remission of sin.

but the issue is, they recieved the HS because they repented.. BEFORE they God baptised..

so you must interpret eis (for) correctly.

I'm 100% convinced that water baptism and the Spirit are related.

you can be 1000% convinced, you would still be wrong.

In Acts 19 Paul meets some believers who were accurately taught about Jesus but were baptized wrong. When Paul finds out they hadn't received the Holy Spirit, he only questions their baptism. He doesn't question what they were taught. He doesn't question if they truly believed. He doesn't question if they repented, he questions their baptism.
2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.”

If you continue reading, you will see Paul doesn't give them gifts of the Holy Spirit until he corrects their baptism and baptizes them in the name of Jesus. Just like we see in Acts 2. Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus and you will receive. Just like in John 3, water and spirit.

Go to the gospels..You trying to find things which support you.. You will remain in this state until you go deeper..

 

[turbosixx]

If you look further into Acts 19:5:

“On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭19‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.19.5.ESV

Ebaptisthesan is the aorist indicative passive form of baptizo. So, it indicates an action that has already occurred. When it says “On hearing this” and then uses a verb that indicates an action that has already taken place how would you view that?

If you truly believe it, don't be afraid to say it. Is baptism in the name of Jesus water baptism, yes or no?

 

[turbosixx]

Yes,, that is why it says be baptised for remission of sin.

but the issue is, they recieved the HS because they repented.. BEFORE they God baptised..

so you must interpret eis (for) correctly.

Like I say, I'm no english major. If what you say is true, shouldn't the language be "repent and you will be baptized for the remission of sins" ........"having received the Holy Spirit" past tense

you can be 1000% convinced, you would still be wrong.

You are correct. I've been wrong before and will be again many times over.

Go to the gospels..You trying to find things which support you.. You will remain in this state until you go deeper..

Here's the problem with that. The gospels are before Jesus commanded baptism in the name of.
At the end of the gospels, right before His ascension.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the language indicate the apostles are the ones doing the baptizing? Go (you apostles) make disciples, (you apostles) baptizing in the name of