|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order to go to heaven?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order to go to heaven?
|
| Yes |
|
| No |
|
| Maybe/Not Sure |
|
Total Votes : 144
|
(last vote on : 11/15/2009 2:43:45 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 7:40:05 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Something did. Early in John's ministry, John preached about a "not-as-of-yet-identified" Messiah. Later, after John's death, once Jesus died and rose from the dead, it (baptism) reflected a picture of the resurrection. John could not baptized "eis/unto" Jesus the Messiah because he was not identified and certainly not resurrected. But the change represented further revelation, not a change of status.
OK, fair enough. I can agree with that explanation.
quote:
Apollos' teaching would be accurate but not complete. Once he was filled in on the lastest happenings, he could go forth and preach without having any such rebaptism himself. My view reflects what facts are presented in chapter 18. Your view reflects absolutely nothing like that. Sorry, I don't see how your view reflects what facts are presented any more than mine does.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 7:48:34 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Uh, no. They got rebaptized after instruction about the Messiah. It was really not about the baptism so much as it was about their faith in the Messiah.
Look at 19:4-5
"Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Most likely they missed the part about their repentance as preparation for the Messiah. They were baptized "unto John's baptism." Paul explains that John predicted the Messiah (i.e. Jesus, see verse 4). Apparently, those men didn't believe upon any Messiah, Jesus or anyone else. So, their baptism didn't count. What cued Paul into that fact is that they had not had the HS come upon them. They didn't know the HS had already come. If they had, it would be because they already knew about Jesus and resurrection-- since the HS came to glorify a resurrected Christ.
I wonder what prompted Paul to ask them if they'd received the Holy Spirit since they believed in the first place. And then when he found out that they hadn't the very first thing he asked about was their baptism. It certainly sounds to me like Paul thought there was some connection between being baptized in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit.
John, however, was preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). But Paul didn't ask these disciples about their repentance -- He asked if they'd received the Holy Spirit. And then explained to them that the Messiah that John had predicted was Jesus of Nazareth.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 7:51:49 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
No one believes the prayer or walking the aisle has any value. You are making it sound like we believe that. Sorry, I while I was in churches where those were practiced, it was said over and over that those things have no value in and of themselves. It matters not whether a person does them so long as they believe. It is the faith in Christ that counts.
This is what I believe about baptism. The only difference is that baptism is mentioned in the Bible and it does matter whether a person does it or not whereas faith only, walking an aisle and saying a sinners prayer are not. It's commendable that you reject those things as well, for they certainly are not Biblical.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 10:12:08 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sorry, I don't see how your view reflects what facts are presented any more than mine does.
Jesus said in the gospel of John that the HS could not come unless less he went away. Until chapter 18, no one (nada, zilch) was told to be rebaptized. There was not a single suggestion. It was never an issue. Why assume that should be?
We are not told the nature of Apollos' deficiency but the necessity of believing on Christ is repeatedly given. His resurrection is repeatedly spoken of but Apollos "knew only the baptism of John." It is not so much a stretch to suggest that Apollos didn't know it. It is true that the text is not explicit, but the knowledge of Christ's resurrection is given as critical in other scriptures. The necessity of repeating a baptism is not only not critical, it is absent, save Acts 19.
quote:
I wonder what prompted Paul to ask them if they'd received the Holy Spirit since they believed in the first place.
We aren't told.
quote:
And then when he found out that they hadn't the very first thing he asked about was their baptism. It certainly sounds to me like Paul thought there was some connection between being baptized in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit.
Note what he asked, "To what were you baptized?" Essentially, it means "in what name" or "to what purpose"? Their answer reflected the identity of the preacher, John. That tells us little or nothing. The lack of content in their answer probably told Paul that they didn't know the essential facts of the gospel. Their answer should have said something about Jesus or at least of the Jewish Messiah. They didn't answer with anything that indicated they understood John the Baptist's message.
During the transition of Acts, I doubt very much if any Jew received the HS without baptism. And so far as we know, these guys were Jews.
quote:
This is what I believe about baptism. The only difference is that baptism is mentioned in the Bible and it does matter whether a person does it or not whereas faith only, walking an aisle and saying a sinners prayer are not. It's commendable that you reject those things as well, for they certainly are not Biblical.
I think I've dealt with this before. The sinner's prayer IS found in scripture. While there were no aisles in the Bible, there are many invitations "to come." There is nothing wrong with asking for expressions of faith so long as it doesn't give the impression that those expressions are substitutes for believing.
Baptism IS mentioned too. But there are certainly false baptisms as is reflected in Acts 19.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 10:31:38 PM
|
|
|
AbbyGrace
Posts: 634
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: AbbyGrace
I have read through this thread, and find some post to be a bit disturbing, especially those claiming that if you arent baptized, you wont make it into Heaven.
So what happens, when someone gets saved and "the very next day," gets into their car and ends up in a tragic accident, and dies? Are people here saying, "that this person goes to hell because they werent baptized?"
Of course if they had been saved in New Testament times they would have been baptized immediately (e.g. the Philippian jailer and the Ethiopian eunuch). In those days baptism was so intertwined with salvation that it was virtually the same event and occurred at the same time. Therefore, your hypothetical person would not have to ask the question because they would have been baptized by the time of the "tragic accident." In reality, though, I've seen more Christians live to be baptized than I've seen die before they could be baptized.
Besides, wouldn't we rather base our understanding of Scripture on what scripture says and not upon possible, hypothetical situations that tend to support what we think should happen rather than what Scripture actually says?
No, Im sorry...but I do not agree with you on this. There was a kid who had given his life to Christ at Winter Jam back last year, and they were not baptising that night, not only him but many others were saved on this night......that night, after Winter Jam, that kid was killed in a tragic accident, not you or anyone else for that matter will ever convince me that, that kid did not go to heaven, and someone making these kind of assumptions, might should think twice before making them. When a person can sit and say that someone has either went to heaven or hell, is almost making themselves out to be ones judge, and we all know that we are not in postion for that!!!
_____________________________
Hebrews 12:14 "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/14/2008 11:31:53 PM
|
|
|
gcgrimes
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline
|
I believe that you have as a group followed a rabbit trail instead of answering the posted question. I personally believe that baptism is required as a component of salvation; however, that belief seems to vary in detail from your posts. If it were not mentioned in multiple places that Baptism is part of the salvation experience, I could see how you could assume it is an obsolete tradition. However, if you understand the purpose of the Old Testament as providing Types for our review and understanding of the anti-types that exist under the New Covenant, then Turn with me to 2 Kings Chapter 5 and just for a moment review the account of Elisha and Naaman. Naaman came to Elisha as a powerful man from Syria. Elisha sent him a note to go an bathe 7 times in the River Jordan. Naaman took this as an insult. He expected great and wondrous rituals to be done to free him from his Leprosy (which is the type referring to the snti-type sin) He went away angry refusing to comply with Elisha's request. However, his counselors advised him wisely, saying if Elisha had demanding some great deed would he not have accomplished it without hesitation. Naaman relented and travelled to the nasty little River Jordan and dipped himself seven times (7 being the number for completeness) and the Leprosy was healed. Note that Naaman followed the instructions to the letter and his Leprosy was no more.
If we take this as the OT Type for Baptism then we can infer that NT Baptism results in the removal of our sins- our taking part in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our being reborn as Jesus put it. Just what is this rebirth. I submit that it is the birth of our new Human Spirit which has been dead since Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. Ever wondered what died in the if you eat of the fruit of this tree thou shalt surely die. This is the death of the Human Spirit which could not survive in the presence of sin. In order for a new Spirit to be born in us then the old sin must be somehow removed. I submit that through water baptism in obedience to scriptural instruction, we have the availability of this removal of sin from our bodies allowing our baptism in the Holy Spirit and the Birth of our new Man (Human Spirit) I realize that this leans toward Baptismal Regeneration and if that is how you want to interpret it then so be it. However, I see the importance of Baptism in the early Church as significant as a part of the Salvation Process. Please consider my points and set aside your bias that all you have to do is believe, because the Bible tells us that ever the demons believe and tremble.
_____________________________
"Are the things you are living for, worth Christ Dying for?" Ravenhill
"If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified." — Leonard Ravenhill
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/15/2008 12:04:33 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AbbyGrace
No, Im sorry...but I do not agree with you on this. There was a kid who had given his life to Christ at Winter Jam back last year, and they were not baptising that night, not only him but many others were saved on this night......that night, after Winter Jam, that kid was killed in a tragic accident, not you or anyone else for that matter will ever convince me that, that kid did not go to heaven, and someone making these kind of assumptions, might should think twice before making them. When a person can sit and say that someone has either went to heaven or hell, is almost making themselves out to be ones judge, and we all know that we are not in postion for that!!!
I agree that the person in your example went to heaven. I would never say that they didn't.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/15/2008 12:07:40 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
gcgrimes,
Good post!! Thanks.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/15/2008 12:41:08 PM
|
|
|
ChristFollower21
Posts: 85
Joined: 11/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
I think it's funny that you declare that the statement I made is false yet John is the one who said it!
John 1
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
One of the meanings of the English verb "to know" means "to be acquainted with" or "to be familiar with..." (Webster's New World Dictionary). That meaning of "to know" is consistent with the NET Bible's translation of verse 31 "I did not recognize him."
Verse 31 is part of a larger narrative in which John the Baptist met and endorsed Jesus as the Messiah. To interpret verse 31 the way you do takes it out of its context and tries to make it say something it doesn't intend to say.
John was saying he did not know Jesus prior to John's meeting at the River Jordan. John had to have met Jesus before John's ministry was over. John baptized Jesus. How could John have never met Jesus if John baptized Him (Jesus)? John saw Jesus and saw the HS descending on Him. At that point, John realized that Jesus was the Messiah.
quote:
Use whatever translation you want. I use the KJV. It doesn't matter to me how anyone else feels about.
I'm only pointing out that the KJV is vague about Apollos' knowledge of Jesus. The KJV never says Apollos didn't know about Jesus. It is only vague about it. The Greek word Kurios could refer to Jesus or the Father God. It is often used to refer to Jesus in other places.
There is nothing inconsistent with interpreting Acts 18 as saying that Apollos knew about Jesus Christ, just as the other translations say explicitly.
Uhm you do know that translated bibles are translating the KJV? Translation is just a way for people to understand what the Bible is saying (KJV) in a way that we can understand, but if your like me you would pray that God gives you devine wisdom and understanding before you read the bible and you wont need to look at a translated bible.
_____________________________
Romans 3:23 KJV" For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/15/2008 1:32:32 PM
|
|
|
apostolic862004
Posts: 32
Joined: 8/14/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
NO ONE??? I thought the Ephesian disciples got rebaptized after further instruction regarding baptism.
Uh, no. They got rebaptized after instruction about the Messiah. It was really not about the baptism so much as it was about their faith in the Messiah.
Look at 19:4-5
"Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Most likely they missed the part about their repentance as preparation for the Messiah. They were baptized "unto John's baptism." Paul explains that John predicted the Messiah (i.e. Jesus, see verse 4). Apparently, those men didn't believe upon any Messiah, Jesus or anyone else. So, their baptism didn't count. What cued Paul into that fact is that they had not had the HS come upon them. They didn't know the HS had already come. If they had, it would be because they already knew about Jesus and resurrection-- since the HS came to glorify a resurrected Christ.
Graham,
That conclusion is not scriptural nor does it make sense. You say they must have missed the part about repenting but the very thing John preached was repentance. Also, you say it was because they did not believe on any Messiah yet they were baptized unto John's baptism. Why would they do that if they did not believe? Even if baptism were just an outward expression of faith, by being baptized, they expressed faith in something.
As for the part about the HS, everyone that had been baptized unto John's baptism and that truly believed on Jesus did not automatically recieve the HS as soon as it came. There is no scriptural evidence of that whatsoever. So how then can you conlude that they did not believe in Jesus, simply based on the fact that they did not yet receive the Holy Ghost?
In Acts 8:14-17 we find that believers at Samaria had been baptized in Jesus' name and they still did not have the Holy Ghost. Does that mean they did not believe?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/18/2008 11:14:17 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
Graham,
That conclusion is not scriptural nor does it make sense. You say they must have missed the part about repenting but the very thing John preached was repentance. Also, you say it was because they did not believe on any Messiah yet they were baptized unto John's baptism. Why would they do that if they did not believe?
Groan....<*>sigh, sigh<*> Please pay attention before you start telling me what makes sense in my statement and what doesn't. If you fail to understand my words, the lack is yours and not mine.
No, I didn't say they missed the thing about repentance. I said they missed the part about repenting for the preparation for the Messiah. Don't misinterpret my words. Repentance is not an isolated concept. One doesn't repent in a vacuum. One must have something to repent about. One's repentance must have a purpose and baptism must have purpose. The words Baptism "unto repentance" only partially captures the concept of baptism's. But if they had only repented, of what good would that do? Would they be saved if the only just repented? Can we automagically assume they understood everything? Or, more likely, could they have missed something in John's message--something that Paul understood after questioning them? I don't think Dr. Luke the entire conversation but only a brief excerpt.
If their repentance had been for the purpose of the coming (not yet come) Messiah, then they would have repented according to the core purpose of John's baptism.
Of course, it is quite possible that they believed the Messiah would eventually come and that they departed from John's influence, before they saw Jesus. I do not object to that, necessarily.
quote:
Even if baptism were just an outward expression of faith, by being baptized, they expressed faith in something.
I agree. But you are evidently referring to something others have said. I never said that was all baptism was. I don't agree that it is all baptism signifies.
quote:
As for the part about the HS, everyone that had been baptized unto John's baptism and that truly believed on Jesus did not automatically recieve the HS as soon as it came. There is no scriptural evidence of that whatsoever.....In Acts 8:14-17 we find that believers at Samaria had been baptized in Jesus' name and they still did not have the Holy Ghost. Does that mean they did not believe?
Acts is transitional. You won't find a consistent pattern in Acts. You reference Acts 8:14-17 and it is contradicted by Acts 10-11, i.e. Cornelius and company. So if it comes afterward, doesn't it supersede your interpretation of Acts 8? Frankly, I think it means that Luke was not trying to tell us that the HS comes to a person only after baptism. I would suggest there was another purpose and you are selective in your interpretation of the events.
"Can anyone withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?" (Acts 10:47) So you see, it is not just a matter of referencing the scripture you want and ignoring others. As I said, I think that if we compare Acts 8 and 10-11, we will discover the contradiction must lead us to another interpretation, not one coming from our own tradition.
When we take some events and decide that those events represent a universal and perpetual patter, we discover there are problems with that view.
quote:
So how then can you conlude that they did not believe in Jesus, simply based on the fact that they did not yet receive the Holy Ghost?
You have incorrectly interpreted that I based my conclusion on a single factor. Paul announced Jesus coming to them as the name in which they were to be baptized. They didn't have that. They didn't have the Messiah because they didn't have the knowledge of Jesus. In any event, you would probably accept that they had no baptism in the name of Jesus, by John.
Paul explained what John's baptism was all about. Whatever baptism these guys had, Paul recognized there was a difference in their baptism and a baptism as should have been properly administered by John. Essentially, Paul was probably saying, "Your baptism was about such and such (one thing) but John preached thus and so (another thing). I'm going to explain how the final days of Joihn's ministry wound up, pointing to the Jesus that I am preaching."
Whether or not they knew any Messiah whatsoever would come, I am willing to revise my view. But in any event, they did not know the Messiah was Jesus--whatever else they might have understood about the soon-to-come-Messiah .
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 12/18/2008 1:33:08 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/18/2008 11:53:48 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Notice further the text says:
"No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." (verse 2)
There are two possible ways to interpret this verse:
1) They didn't know the HS existed.
2) They didn't know the Day of Pentecost had come and subsequent out pourings of the HS on Christ's believers.
The Greek grammar here is over my head but I accept the latter interpretation. If we accept the first interpretation, can we honestly say these guys got an ungarbled message from John the Baptist? Far be it from being so. The same John the Baptist who baptized also said "...one comes after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit..." How could they be so clueless if they had been paying attention? They couldn't have been clueless if they had properly heard John's message.
If we accept the latter interpretation of their words in verse 2, it would mean they didn't know the HS had come to God's people. That means that they left the region of Palestine BEFORE Pentecost. And/or they may have left Palestine waaayyy earlier than that, which could have been before Jesus' death 40-50 days before Pentecost.
If they had left before John the Baptist exposed Jesus as the soon-to-come-Messiah, it would make even more sense. It would work well with an interpretation that Paul the Apostle presented the complete gospel message to them--something they lacked earlier.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 12/18/2008 12:21:22 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/18/2008 11:55:49 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristFollower21
quote:
I'm only pointing out that the KJV is vague about Apollos' knowledge of Jesus. The KJV never says Apollos didn't know about Jesus. It is only vague about it. The Greek word Kurios could refer to Jesus or the Father God. It is often used to refer to Jesus in other places.
There is nothing inconsistent with interpreting Acts 18 as saying that Apollos knew about Jesus Christ, just as the other translations say explicitly.
Uhm you do know that translated bibles are translating the KJV? Translation is just a way for people to understand what the Bible is saying (KJV) in a way that we can understand, but if your like me you would pray that God gives you devine wisdom and understanding before you read the bible and you wont need to look at a translated bible.
There is a KJV thread in the Bible folder, so I'll just comment briefly. Crosswalk management would like us to debate translation issue over there if we want to debate questions about the KJV.
But you're wrong. Many other Bibles, including the NIV and the NET Bible I use ARE NOT rephrases derived from the KJV. The NET Bible, NIV, NASB are all translations from the original languages--Greek for the NT and Hebrew for the OT.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 12/18/2008 12:22:32 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/18/2008 1:54:56 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Apostolic,
Insofar as Paul's question "Did you receive the HS when you believed?", Paul assumed they believed. The text never says they believed in Jesus. Sure they believed, but what did they believe? John's message? All of it or part of it? You cannot tell by their reply. It does not tell us what they believed. If they had said they were baptized unto Jesus, then Paul would know they had believed in Jesus.
Paul then pointed out that John's message included the Messiah who was to have come, "namely Jesus" (Verse 4).
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 12/18/2008 5:03:02 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/18/2008 7:03:14 PM
|
|
|
AbbyGrace
Posts: 634
Status: offline
|
For those of you who believe that you "HAVE" to be baptiized to go to heaven, dont you think that before one gets baptized, they need to understand why they are being baptized? Why be baptized and not understand the meaning behind it? Being baptized does not take any of us to heaven. Yes, I believe once you are saved, that its important to be baptized, but I can honestly say, when I got saved, I wasnt baptized straight away....I waited, read the Word of God and understood why I was doing this. But between the time I got saved and the time I was baptized, I can say and know this without a doubt, that if it were my time to go, and I had not been baptized, I WOULD HAVE GONE TO HEAVEN.
_____________________________
Hebrews 12:14 "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 6:35:35 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AbbyGrace
For those of you who believe that you "HAVE" to be baptiized to go to heaven, dont you think that before one gets baptized, they need to understand why they are being baptized? Why be baptized and not understand the meaning behind it? Being baptized does not take any of us to heaven. Yes, I believe once you are saved, that its important to be baptized, but I can honestly say, when I got saved, I wasnt baptized straight away....I waited, read the Word of God and understood why I was doing this. But between the time I got saved and the time I was baptized, I can say and know this without a doubt, that if it were my time to go, and I had not been baptized, I WOULD HAVE GONE TO HEAVEN.
No, I don't think it's necessary that one understand why they are being baptized. Sure it would be good if they did, but it's not necessary. I believe, God will accomplish what He will in baptism whether people understand it or not. Pesonally, I didn't understand the meaning and purpose of baptism until many years after I was baptized, but I believe, beyond a shadow of doubt, that between the time I was baptized and the time I understood what it meant, if anything would have happened to me, I still would still have gone to heaven.
Nevertheless, when I present the gospel to a non-believer, I always include baptism as part of the gospel message, just like Peter, Paul, Philip, and Ananias did. So when people that I've witnessed to are baptized they have an understanding of what it's purpose is and what it means.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 7:59:33 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
AbbeyGrace said
For those of you who believe that you "HAVE" to be baptiized to go to heaven, dont you think that before one gets baptized, they need to understand why they are being baptized? Why be baptized and not understand the meaning behind it? Being baptized does not take any of us to heaven.
Abbey,
Some groups, like some of the Churches of Christ, believe you do have to know why. Many of them claim that if you do not get baptized "for the [purpose of] remission of sins" (i.e. Acts 2:38), then it doesn't count. What's more, in addition to that, believing, repenting and confessing are all equally necessary and they all have to be done in a certain order.
quote:
Being baptized does not take any of us to heaven.
That's really a sticking point. While they claim that baptism in and of itself without faith, for example, it doesn't accomplish anything. Phrasing is important here. While none of us detractors from their position argue that "baptism alone apart from faith" reflects their position, they feel obligated to it out as if we had said it.quote:
great divide said:
Nevertheless, when I present the gospel to a non-believer, I always include baptism as part of the gospel message, just like Peter, Paul, Philip, and Ananias did. So when people that I've witnessed to are baptized they have an understanding of what it's purpose is and what it means.
Actually, they didn't. You are supposing that the term "for the remission of sins" reflects a part of the gospel. In response to the question: "What must I do to be saved?" no one ever said believe and be baptized. In fact, in 1 Cor. 15, Paul tells us what the gospel is and he tells us what one must do in order to receive it. He doesn't mention baptism.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 11:18:21 AM
|
|
|
apostolic862004
Posts: 32
Joined: 8/14/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Acts is transitional. You won't find a consistent pattern in Acts. You reference Acts 8:14-17 and it is contradicted by Acts 10-11, i.e. Cornelius and company. So if it comes afterward, doesn't it supersede your interpretation of Acts 8? Frankly, I think it means that Luke was not trying to tell us that the HS comes to a person only after baptism. I would suggest there was another purpose and you are selective in your interpretation of the events.
Graham,
I never said that the Holy Ghost ONLY comes after baptism. I don't believe that. I have watched people get the Holy Ghost in my church for years. Some before baptism and some after baptism. However, I do believe that you will not get it before repentance. You must first believe, then repent. You must be baptized as well but that does not assume that you won't get the Holy Ghost until you are baptized. It just means that you must do it.
quote:
Paul explained what John's baptism was all about. Whatever baptism these guys had, Paul recognized there was a difference in their baptism and a baptism as should have been properly administered by John. Essentially, Paul was probably saying, "Your baptism was about such and such (one thing) but John preached thus and so (another thing). I'm going to explain how the final days of Joihn's ministry wound up, pointing to the Jesus that I am preaching."
I believe that %100!
quote:
dont you think that before one gets baptized, they need to understand why they are being baptized?
AbbeyGrace, my answer is no. God never commanded us to understand anything. If you tell your child to bring you an apple off the table, do they need to understand why they are getting the apple before bringing it to you? No, they simply need to obey. They will understand it when they see you eating it that you are hungry. Now, an older child would understand that right away but a younger child would not. Does that mean then that the younger child should not bring you the apple because they don't understand why you want it? No.
quote:
Actually, they didn't. You are supposing that the term "for the remission of sins" reflects a part of the gospel. In response to the question: "What must I do to be saved?" no one ever said believe and be baptized. In fact, in 1 Cor. 15, Paul tells us what the gospel is and he tells us what one must do in order to receive it. He doesn't mention baptism.
Graham, How can you say that? It is plain as day in Acts 2:37-38! After peter preached to them they felt convicted of their sin (namely crucifying Jesus) and asked What shall we do. They were asking how could they be saved seeing that they had crucified the one they were seeking. Peters response was to repent and be baptized and that they would receive the Holy Ghost. Verse 41 lets us know that the ones who gladly recieved his words were baptized.
There is only one time when the exact question "What must I do to be saved" is recorded in scripture and it is Acts 16:30. Paul answered and said Believe on the Lord and thou shalt be saved. Now alot of people will say that this is all you have to do because that is all that Paul told him to do. Well I would submit this question to you: Did they have to repent? Jesus said that if you don't repent, you will perish (go to hell). Paul didn't tell him to repent or be baptized or say anything to him about the Holy Ghost right? Wrong. The gospel did not change and neither did Paul's message. The next verse says that they spake the Word of the Lord to him. They gave him the whole gospel but the whole conversation was not recorded. Two verses later, he, and all his house were baptized.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 2:10:08 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 2252
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
I like to break things down to the simplest level, eliminating all the bells and whistles and when I do that I go back to the words of Jesus Christ;
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Christ didn’t say go see John and get wet…He said just believe.
This all brings us back to the thief on the cross.... 
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 4:45:18 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1584
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Actually, they didn't. You are supposing that the term "for the remission of sins" reflects a part of the gospel. In response to the question: "What must I do to be saved?" no one ever said believe and be baptized. And yet all who believed were baptized. Kinda makes one wonder how they learned about baptism.
quote:
In fact, in 1 Cor. 15, Paul tells us what the gospel is and he tells us what one must do in order to receive it. He doesn't mention baptism.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are either saying baptism is not a part of the gospel, or Peter, Paul, Philip, and Ananias didn't mention baptism when they presented the gospel. Whichever one you mean, I think both of them are wrong. My evidence? There are no examples of any Christians in the New Testament who are not baptized.
But you are quite right about Paul not mentioning baptism in 1 Corinthians 15.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
<===avatar is US soldiers in Iraq at sunset
You are to rise in the presence of the elderly and honor the old. -- Leviticus 19:32
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 5:55:59 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: apostolic862004
However, I do believe that you will not get it before repentance. You must first believe, then repent. You must be baptized as well but that does not assume that you won't get the Holy Ghost until you are baptized. It just means that you must do it.
Repentance, like baptism, is not a term that must be taken in isolation. I.e., in a vacuum. While it carries a lot of semantic baggage, it must have an object. You assume one and exclude any others. IOW, one must repent about something. How many verses do you find that mention them both and treat them as separate ideas as you seem to be doing? Maybe one or two? At most that is pretty weak because the context is not clear that there is a strict division between the two as you suggest.
No doubt your hermanuetic combines separate concepts from different contexts and melds them together. It's a cut and paste hermaneutic. But it could be equally interpreted that in some contexts they could be treated as somewhat interchangeable. I would say that the term repent is more flexible in that regard.
quote:
Graham, How can you say that? It is plain as day in Acts 2:37-38! After peter preached to them they felt convicted of their sin (namely crucifying Jesus) and asked What shall we do. They were asking how could they be saved seeing that they had crucified the one they were seeking. Peters response was to repent and be baptized and that they would receive the Holy Ghost. Verse 41 lets us know that the ones who gladly recieved his words were baptized.
Your presupposition is that Peter was threatening them with hell. If you look at the context carefully, he never does that. If you look at a similar sermon in chapter 4, Peter demands repentance but fails to mention baptism. But it does carry a similar and more clearly discussed thread of death because of their blood guiltiness (executing God's annointed).
It does boil down to why and exactly how is Peter's command to be baptized related to his response. Certainly Acts 2:38 and similar proof-texts is the cornerstone of your theology.quote:
There is only one time when the exact question "What must I do to be saved" is recorded in scripture and it is Acts 16:30. Paul answered and said Believe on the Lord and thou shalt be saved. .... Wrong. The gospel did not change and neither did Paul's message. The next verse says that they spake the Word of the Lord to him. They gave him the whole gospel but the whole conversation was not recorded. ....
Here is a situation where you are writing Paul's whole sermonette for him. You are putting words in his mouth and asking me to buy it. Essentially, you are negating the word of God.
Read Galatians and Romans. How many times is repentance used in those books? Those books are veeerrrry evangelistic. I am not suggesting that repentance was left out. But you are carrying a great deal of baggage into Paul's words and at least three books of the Bible that are evangelistic doesn't justify it.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 12/19/2008 6:10:46 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 6:04:35 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Great Divide said
quote:
quote:
Actually, they didn't. You are supposing that the term "for the remission of sins" reflects a part of the gospel. In response to the question: "What must I do to be saved?" no one ever said believe and be baptized.
And yet all who believed were baptized. Kinda makes one wonder how they learned about baptism.
Baptism was practiced by Jews in various forms. The people in the Bible observed people being baptized and were commanded to do so. No mystery there.
quote:
So, if I understand you correctly, you are either saying baptism is not a part of the gospel, or Peter, Paul, Philip, and Ananias didn't mention baptism when they presented the gospel. Whichever one you mean, I think both of them are wrong. My evidence? There are no examples of any Christians in the New Testament who are not baptized.
Please. That they mentioned baptism when they presented the gospel does not make it a condition for salvation. And the practice of people following the Lord in baptism doesn't make it a condition for baptism either.
quote:
But you are quite right about Paul not mentioning baptism in 1 Corinthians 15.
Well, then. Wouldn't Paul be remiss (negligent) if he said the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus was the gospel and believing it would get someone saved---if that were not the complete gospel?
It's kinda like the Charismatics insisting on the "full gospel" as if someone not speaking in tongues didn't get it all.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 6:24:53 PM
|
|
|
apostolic862004
Posts: 32
Joined: 8/14/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
There is only one time when the exact question "What must I do to be saved" is recorded in scripture and it is Acts 16:30. Paul answered and said Believe on the Lord and thou shalt be saved. .... Wrong. The gospel did not change and neither did Paul's message. The next verse says that they spake the Word of the Lord to him. They gave him the whole gospel but the whole conversation was not recorded. ....
Here is a situation where you are writing Paul's whole sermonette for him. You are putting words in his mouth and asking me to buy it. Essentially, you are negating the word of God.
Graham,
If you truly believe that then my question is this, where did they learn to be baptized? After Paul preached to them that they had to believe, they got baptized. Where did they get that from? I contend that Paul preached it to them. You are saying I am wrong so that means you are saying they got it from somewhere else. Essentially, you are doing the same thing I am and this is making an assumption because it does not explicitly say who told them they needed to be baptized. The only difference is that I can pull other scriptures in Acts where this same pattern occurred over and over again. Some one preached, they believed, they were baptized.
quote:
Repentance, like baptism, is not a term that must be taken in isolation. I.e., in a vacuum. While it carries a lot of semantic baggage, it must have an object. You assume one and exclude any others. IOW, one must repent about something. How many verses do you find that mention them both and treat them as separate ideas as you seem to be doing? Maybe one or two? At most that is pretty weak because the context is not clear that there is a strict division between the two as you suggest.
No doubt your hermanuetic combines separate concepts from different contexts and melds them together. It's a cut and paste hermaneutic. But it could be equally interpreted that in some contexts they could be treated as somewhat interchangeable. I would say that the term repent is more flexible in that regard.
Repentance and baptism are not interchangeable because they do not serve the same purpose. But if I were to humor you and say that they are, then you definately have to be baptized. In Luke 13:3 Jesus said that except you repent, you will perish! If I go by what you are saying, Jesus said except you be baptized, you shall perish! However, that is not what was said. Repentance and baptism are two seperate occurences with two seperate purposes.
quote:
Your presupposition is that Peter was threatening them with hell. If you look at the context carefully, he never does that. If you look at a similar sermon in chapter 4, Peter demands repentance but fails to mention baptism. But it does carry a similar and more clearly discussed thread of death because of their blood guiltiness (executing God's annointed).
It does boil down to why and exactly how is Peter's command to be baptized related to his response. Certainly Acts 2:38 and similar proof-texts is the cornerstone of your theology.
You say that Peter was not "threatening" them with hell. He didn't have to. He was letting them know that they had crucified the Messiah. Would that send someone to hell? I think so. They had sinned and he was preaching to them so that they would realize their sin. They did and asked what should they do. They knew what it meant if they had killed not only an innocent man, but the Messiah. That meant hell. But Peter told them how to be free from that sin and every other sin that they had ever commited. He said repent, and be baptized and that they would receive the Holy Ghost
I don't see any the correlation between Acts 2 and 4 beside Peter telling them that the had killed the Christ. Peter never told them what to do to be saved in Acts 4. He didn't even command them to repent. He just told them that the miracle that was done was done by the one they had crucified.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 12/19/2008 6:25:26 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Look I accept that Acts 2:38 is a difficult passage to defend for my POV. But difficult passages that are certainly not clearly universal soteriological ones must not be used to overturn and eisegete much clearer passages that present faith as the condition for salvation.
You can't just go inserting baptism into passages where it isn't warranted just because you need it for your theology.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
