|
|
|
|
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... - 11/5/2009 11:12:20 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 508
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
Years ago?? How many years ago? This article was written 10 years ago.
I was thinking more like 400! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/6/2009 4:17:43 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
Baptist's used to believe baptism was a part of the salvation process but that has been thrown out the window years ago.
I've divided as to whether to divert to yet another rabbit trail or ignore an obviously erroneous and uninformed statement.
I've been busy babysitting.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/6/2009 5:21:07 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 5587
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: online
|
I don't view baptism as salvific. I do believe it is obedience.
However, should a Christian "refuse" to be baptized, I would think a serious conversation would be in order as to their reasoning. I would think Christians should be viewing baptism as an outward acknowledgement/expression of their salvation.
Maybe even something akin to a privilege of entering a new family.
_____________________________
Thanksgiving dinners take eighteen hours to prepare.
They are consumed in twelve minutes.
Half-times take twelve minutes.
This is not coincidence.
~Erma Bombeck
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/6/2009 10:07:12 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 508
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
Baptist's used to believe baptism was a part of the salvation process but that has been thrown out the window years ago.
I've divided as to whether to divert to yet another rabbit trail or ignore an obviously erroneous and uninformed statement.
I've been busy babysitting.
Yes you are correct! I am sorry for the misinformation. I was thinking of somebody else.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/6/2009 10:59:05 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1585
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doinkdom
However, should a Christian "refuse" to be baptized, I would think a serious conversation would be in order as to their reasoning.
I agree. To reject baptism is to reject the gospel message preached by Peter, Paul, and the other apostles who spoke of the need for baptism. To refuse baptism is the same as a rejection of the Christ. It involves a clear unwillingness to obey the gospel preached by the apostles. At least that's how it was in New Testament times. Today, 2,000 years later, things are a little different. Today a person may refuse baptism out of confusion, ignorance, or uncertainty and I don't believe such confusion, ignorance or uncertainty will result in damnation. But, that's totally up to God. I don't believe that we can teach that confusion, ignorance, or uncertainty are the norm for conversion experiences. To do so would be to emphasize the abnormal.
_____________________________
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... - 11/7/2009 9:30:09 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
From post #1037, Greatdivide:
I do understand, though the simply counting lines in a lexicon does not decide the meaning of a word in a particular verse. That's why I said the preponderance of evidence leans toward the meaning of "goal or purpose."
I'm glad that you understand that counting lines of lexicon is shaky. However, when you state that you believe that the preponderance of evidence leans toward the meaning of "goal and purpose," that is very vague and general.
Let's take the following scripture as an example:
Brethren,I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
(Phil. 3:14, NKJV)
The word "for" is the Greek word eis in the underlined phrase. One might think that it is the word "toward" in this translation, but it isn't. I checked. Anyway, a goal or purpose is a far cry from many baptismal salvationists' view that eis in Acts 2:38 means "for the purpose of". Don't get me wrong, I believe "for the purpose of" is possible. I say that because we have an early textual variant of the Greek word "pros," used in Acts 3:19. I suspect it is a late manuscript but it illustrates that scribes could have been confused.
You said:
quote:
And only 16 lines to explain that it sometimes means "with respect to" or "with reference to."
I went to one of my references to get the uses of baptizo and eis together. In the short space of time I have at the moment, the search would take a while. However, here is a sample:
Matt 3:11
"As for me, I baptize you with/en water for/eis repentance..." I have to ask, isn't "with respect to" a better meaning? It cannot be in order to get or in order to receive repentance. That would make no sense.
Matt. 28:19, "baptizing them in/eis the name..." It cannot mean "eis" locatively either. That would make no sense. BTW, the use of "in/eis the name" makes more sense to me to mean "eis [in the name of] Christ," as in Romans 6:3."
1 Cor 10:2
"...were all baptized eis/unto Moses..." This again, illustrates a good meaning of "with respect to."
quote:
*Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres, 1952.
Do you have that lexicon on your book shelf? I only have Thayer's. The BAGD was $60 off the shelf, not a price I wanted to pay.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 9:43:19 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird (post #1047)quote:
quote:
Sin in general. Past sins, future sins.
I disagree. How so? It would help a bit if you would elaborate just a little.
I have been corresponding with Great divide along these lines already. See my post 1034.
I'm starting to have some sympathy with your predicament concerning time constraints. I've had a bit of a week this past week and took longer than I wanted to reply. Even then, not with the depth I intended.
quote:
[Now we got to find out who is reading something into the text and who is not. Who is paying attention to context and who is not?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but honestly, twice already I have caught you on factual errors. If you want to make yourself more credible, a little fact checking would be in order. For example, when I mentioned John 3:16, you based your disagreement on the tense of a verb. However, when you discovered you were in error on the tense of the verb, I notice that you did not change your opinion. In that case, the alleged fact turned out not to be a fact at all. Does that mean that you hold your views regardless of the facts? It looks to me like you have opinions looking for facts instead of the other way around.
quote:
Both of us can't be right if there is a disagreement.
While we both cannot be right if there is a disagreement. However, we both can be wrong.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/7/2009 10:06:40 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 10:20:22 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1585
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
The word "for" is the Greek word eis in the underlined phrase. One might think that it is the word "toward" in this translation, but it isn't. I checked. Anyway, a goal or purpose is a far cry from many baptismal salvationists' view that eis in Acts 2:38 means "for the purpose of". Don't get me wrong, I believe "for the purpose of" is possible. I say that because we have an early textual variant of the Greek word "pros," used in Acts 3:19. I suspect it is a late manuscript but it illustrates that scribes could have been confused.
I've notice that the same exact phrase that occurs in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness of sins" also occurs in Matthew 26:28. So, it seems to me that whatever eis means in Matthew 26:28 it also means in Acts 2:38. I prefer to believe that it means "for the purpose" of having sins forgiven rather than "with respect" to sins already forgiven. Although I can see how someone could accept the "with respect to" definition in both Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38.
_____________________________
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... - 11/7/2009 10:43:20 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
The word "for" is the Greek word eis in the underlined phrase. One might think that it is the word "toward" in this translation, but it isn't. I checked. Anyway, a goal or purpose is a far cry from many baptismal salvationists' view that eis in Acts 2:38 means "for the purpose of". Don't get me wrong, I believe "for the purpose of" is possible. I say that because we have an early textual variant of the Greek word "pros," used in Acts 3:19. I suspect it is a late manuscript but it illustrates that scribes could have been confused.
I've notice that the same exact phrase that occurs in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness of sins" also occurs in Matthew 26:28. So, it seems to me that whatever eis means in Matthew 26:28 it also means in Acts 2:38. I prefer to believe that it means "for the purpose" of having sins forgiven rather than "with respect" to sins already forgiven. Although I can see how someone could accept the "with respect to" definition in both Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38.
I considered that. However, if they meant what you indicate they meant, wouldn't that mean that forgiveness of sins is achieved by the shedding of blood? However, we know that isn't true--because who gets it? Everyone in general? Some people? The fact that the phrase is there tells us nothing about the conditions required to achieve it, save that it happens.
However, when you try to apply the same reasoning to Acts 2:38, isn't that really the exact thing you're trying to prove that it does mean?
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 10:44:51 AM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 508
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but honestly, twice already I have caught you on factual errors. If you want to make yourself more credible, a little fact checking would be in order.
Yeah sure
quote:
For example, when I mentioned John 3:16, you based your disagreement on the tense of a verb. However, when you discovered you were in error on the tense of the verb, I notice that you did not change your opinion.
I don't remember that being the case. I was speaking of context not individual words. Context defines the words. I never claimed that one word was in future tense. I was speaking of context.
quote:
In that case, the alleged fact turned out not to be a fact at all. Does that mean that you hold your views regardless of the facts? It looks to me like you have opinions looking for facts instead of the other way around.
I can relate to this when it comes to you as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 1:15:13 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbirdquote:
For example, when I mentioned John 3:16, you based your disagreement on the tense of a verb. However, when you discovered you were in error on the tense of the verb, I notice that you did not change your opinion.
I don't remember that being the case. I was speaking of context not individual words. Context defines the words. I never claimed that one word was in future tense. I was speaking of context.
Here are your words: Case not closed....you just misquoted John 3:16....It does not say there that if one believes they have eternal life.....it says if one believes they will have eternal life....future tense. It doesn't they then at that moment have it. Reference, Post #48 salvation and repentance thread.
Only individual words have future tense and present tense. They are called verbs. Context does not have tense. Context can reflect future events or even future conditions but it does not have tense.
1) You accused me of misquoting. If you were speaking of context, how could I be misquoting context?
2) You used the word "future tense." That automatically defaults to individual words called verbs.
3) You told me the verse said "will have" eternal life. Will have is a verb. Verbs have tense, like I said. Factually, you were wrong, there is no "will have" in John 3:16.
quote:
quote:
In that case, the alleged fact turned out not to be a fact at all. Does that mean that you hold your views regardless of the facts? It looks to me like you have opinions looking for facts instead of the other way around.
I can relate to this when it comes to you as well.
Sure. Can you point to any factual error on my part? Remember we are talking about facts, not opinions. I am not aware of any facts that I have incorrectly alleged. I have an agenda but I am not allowed to make up facts to support it. Bias is basic to the human condition.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/7/2009 1:37:56 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 2:12:36 PM
|
|
|
richartrod
Posts: 192
Joined: 4/21/2009
Status: offline
|
The subject of baptism always raises a hornet's nest, as this long-running thread shows.
I am a Lutheran, which means that we baptize babies as well as children and adults. That alone means some evangelicals already hate us. But my pastor teaches that if one really wants to get down to brass tacks, baptism is not necessary for salvation. We get baptized out of obedience to our Lord, but one can be saved without baptism. The clearest example of this is the thief on the cross:
- But the other criminal protested, "Don't you fear God even even when you are dying? We deserve to die for our evil deeds, but this man hasn't done anything wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And Jesus replied, "I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:39-43, New Living Translation)
My pastor also points to the Great Commission in Luke 16:15-16:
- "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned."
This is bolstered in question 251 from the "Explanation of Luther's Small Cathechism" (The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 1991):
- 251. Is it possible for an unbaptized person to be saved?
It is only unbelief that condemns. Faith cannot exist in the heart of a person who despises and rejects Baptism against better knowledge. But those who believe the Gospel, yet die before they have opportunity to be baptized are not condemned. (emphasis mine)
I will leave it to others to dissect, parse and debate what is really meant by these citations. As a believer who grew up Nazarene, briefly attended Calvary Chapel and is now a Lutheran, I believe that one is indeed saved apart from baptism.
One final comment: For me, it is so sad that fellow Christians argue, divide, split churches, end relationships and condemn one another over how a person should be baptized (sprinkling, full immersion, water poured over one's head) rather than when or why. This is a classic red herring from Satan's bag of tricks that diverts us from the Great Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 2:55:47 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 508
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbirdquote:
For example, when I mentioned John 3:16, you based your disagreement on the tense of a verb. However, when you discovered you were in error on the tense of the verb, I notice that you did not change your opinion.
I don't remember that being the case. I was speaking of context not individual words. Context defines the words. I never claimed that one word was in future tense. I was speaking of context.
Here are your words: Case not closed....you just misquoted John 3:16....It does not say there that if one believes they have eternal life.....it says if one believes they will have eternal life....future tense. It doesn't they then at that moment have it. Reference, Post #48 salvation and repentance thread.
Only individual words have future tense and present tense. They are called verbs. Context does not have tense. Context can reflect future events or even future conditions but it does not have tense.
1) You accused me of misquoting. If you were speaking of context, how could I be misquoting context?
2) You used the word "future tense." That automatically defaults to individual words called verbs.
3) You told me the verse said "will have" eternal life. Will have is a verb. Verbs have tense, like I said. Factually, you were wrong, there is no "will have" in John 3:16.
quote:
quote:
In that case, the alleged fact turned out not to be a fact at all. Does that mean that you hold your views regardless of the facts? It looks to me like you have opinions looking for facts instead of the other way around.
I can relate to this when it comes to you as well.
Sure. Can you point to any factual error on my part? Remember we are talking about facts, not opinions. I am not aware of any facts that I have incorrectly alleged. I have an agenda but I am not allowed to make up facts to support it. Bias is basic to the human condition.
Will have is in verse 15 and even so the context is not teaching someone how to become saved but where salvation comes from.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 3:55:37 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
Will have is in verse 15 and even so the context is not teaching someone how to become saved but where salvation comes from.
Jjbird,
You are simply making stuff up as you go along. Sorry. But you don't know grammar nor context. "Have" in verse 15 is in exactly the same tense as it is in verse 16: Present tense. Both are present tense, subjunctive, aorist. I checked.
If you don't have any facts, please don't make up stuff.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 4:07:38 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 508
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
Will have is in verse 15 and even so the context is not teaching someone how to become saved but where salvation comes from.
Jjbird,
You are simply making stuff up as you go along. Sorry. But you don't know grammar nor context. "Have" in verse 15 is in exactly the same tense as it is in verse 16: Present tense. Both are present tense, subjunctive, aorist. I checked.
If you don't have any facts, please don't make up stuff.
I am not talking about individual words......I am talking about the context.
John 8:31-32 31 Jesus spoke to the Jews who had believed him. "If you obey my teaching," he said, "you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth. And the truth will set you free."
Jesus speaking to the Jews who had believed him..........they believed but Jesus did not say great you are now saved.....no he said you are really his disciples if you obey THEN you will know the truth and be set free.
Besides you are not even given the Holy Spirit until obey!
It is not just mental assent that saves you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 7:31:47 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
jjbird,
Verb tenses are determined by Greek or Hebrew parsing references, not context. Context does not parse verbs. In the case of John 3:16, I used a parsing guide from Zodhiates' Hebrew and Greek Key Study Bible. It had certain initials coded to tell me tense, aspect and mood. Some people have Greek grammars and parsing guides. People can also do that with computer software they purchase or with Greek parsing guides.
If they are skilled enough at Greek, a person can parse the Greek verbs themselves.
The word "have" is translated in John 3:15-16 into English as present tense verb(s) and subjunctive mood. There is no aorist in English so the aorist is left untranslated. So far as the limits of my Greek knowledge and the consulting of various English translation, the verse John 3:16 is translated correctly. If it were supposed to be future tense, it would be translated into future tense in English, not present tense. Context does not determine verb tense. Individual parsing of words does.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 7:44:40 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is not just mental assent that saves you.
Did I say mental assent saves us? I happen to think mental assent is insufficient. But mental assent is not the only meaning of the words believe/faith.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 8:47:35 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1585
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
The word "for" is the Greek word eis in the underlined phrase. One might think that it is the word "toward" in this translation, but it isn't. I checked. Anyway, a goal or purpose is a far cry from many baptismal salvationists' view that eis in Acts 2:38 means "for the purpose of". Don't get me wrong, I believe "for the purpose of" is possible. I say that because we have an early textual variant of the Greek word "pros," used in Acts 3:19. I suspect it is a late manuscript but it illustrates that scribes could have been confused.
I've notice that the same exact phrase that occurs in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness of sins" also occurs in Matthew 26:28. So, it seems to me that whatever eis means in Matthew 26:28 it also means in Acts 2:38. I prefer to believe that it means "for the purpose" of having sins forgiven rather than "with respect" to sins already forgiven. Although I can see how someone could accept the "with respect to" definition in both Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38.
I considered that. However, if they meant what you indicate they meant, wouldn't that mean that forgiveness of sins is achieved by the shedding of blood? However, we know that isn't true--because who gets it? Everyone in general? Some people? The fact that the phrase is there tells us nothing about the conditions required to achieve it, save that it happens.
However, when you try to apply the same reasoning to Acts 2:38, isn't that really the exact thing you're trying to prove that it does mean?
So what does "for the forgiveness in sins" in Matthew 26:28 mean? And why can it not mean the same thing as "for the forgiveness of sins" in Acts 2:38. I mean the phrases are exactly the same in the Greek.
_____________________________
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... - 11/7/2009 8:52:37 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1585
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: richartrod
We get baptized out of obedience to our Lord, but one can be saved without baptism. The clearest example of this is the thief on the cross:
* But the other criminal protested, "Don't you fear God even even when you are dying? We deserve to die for our evil deeds, but this man hasn't done anything wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And Jesus replied, "I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:39-43, New Living Translation)
Certainly the thief on the cross was saved without baptism. But if baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as Romans 6:3-6 seems to indicate, the thief was not required to be baptized since the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus had not yet occurred. Not a very good example of someone becoming saved without baptism since baptism hadn't even been instituted at the time.
_____________________________
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... - 11/7/2009 9:11:14 PM
|
|
|
richartrod
Posts: 192
Joined: 4/21/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: richartrod
We get baptized out of obedience to our Lord, but one can be saved without baptism. The clearest example of this is the thief on the cross:
* But the other criminal protested, "Don't you fear God even even when you are dying? We deserve to die for our evil deeds, but this man hasn't done anything wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And Jesus replied, "I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:39-43, New Living Translation)
Certainly the thief on the cross was saved without baptism. But if baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as Romans 6:3-6 seems to indicate, the thief was not required to be baptized since the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus had not yet occurred. Not a very good example of someone becoming saved without baptism since baptism hadn't even been instituted at the time.
Good point. Nevertheless, it's one Scripture verse that is used by everyone from Hank Hanegraaff to Greg Laurie as well as my own pastor. Also, before Jesus began His earthly ministry, John the Baptist was baptizing in the Jordan River, but his was a baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4a) and he pointed to his cousin as the one greater than he and whom all should follow (Mark 1:7-8, Acts 19:4b).
Although baptism as we know it today didn't exist at Jesus' crucifixion, I still believe the thief on the cross is a good example of salvation without baptism for that very reason.
I appreciate your response, though; it's a good one and a breath of fresh air compared to the sad condemnations and attacks I've seen elsewhere on this thread.
< Message edited by richartrod -- 11/7/2009 9:17:46 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 9:18:08 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 508
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
It is not just mental assent that saves you.
Did I say mental assent saves us? I happen to think mental assent is insufficient. But mental assent is not the only meaning of the words believe/faith.
Believe/Faith biblically includes obedience.
John using common Hebrew Parrallelism further defines belief for us.
John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/7/2009 9:52:41 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbirdquote:
The word "have" is translated in John 3:15-16 into English as present tense verb(s) and subjunctive mood. There is no aorist in English so the aorist is left untranslated. So far as the limits of my Greek knowledge and the consulting of various English translation, the verse John 3:16 is translated correctly. If it were supposed to be future tense, it would be translated into future tense in English, not present tense. Context does not determine verb tense. Individual parsing of words does.
Yes I know
If you know this, then why were you trying to tell me that "have" in John 3:15-16 is future tense based on context? If verb tense is not based on context, then why were you saying that you determined verb tense by context?
Context does not change present tense into future tense.
quote:
quote:
Did I say mental assent saves us? I happen to think mental assent is insufficient. But mental assent is not the only meaning of the words believe/faith
Believe/Faith biblically includes obedience.
In the thread "salvation and repentance," Post #11, you said: "Faith means firm persuasion, trust, reliance upon." It looks like a definition you got out of either a dictionary or lexicon of some sort. I agree with your definition. However, you cannot sneak another definition into it on your own.
There is only one sense that one obeys when they they believe. That is when the command is to believe. If belief is firm reliance or to be fully persuaded, it requires nothing else to be added to it in order to have eternal life.
quote:
John using common Hebrew Parrallelism further defines belief for us. Exactly how does "Hebrew parallelism" change the definition of a word?
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/7/2009 10:09:53 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/8/2009 2:33:09 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
So what does "for the forgiveness in sins" in Matthew 26:28 mean? And why can it not mean the same thing as "for the forgiveness of sins" in Acts 2:38. I mean the phrases are exactly the same in the Greek.
Both are almost axiomatic in a sense. I mean that forgiveness means forgiveness and sins means sins. Obviously, I can get the lexical meanings but I won't at this point. Anyway, the context of each is different.
I delayed answering you because I wanted to figure how to explain Jesus' words regarding His general atonement of mankind's sins. The shedding of blood he spoke is what is called a metonymy. (I am risking getting my figures of speech wrong here but I will proceed anyway.) The shedding of His blood is speaking of His atoning death for the sins of mankind. It is not talking about the conditions man fulfills but the actions of Christ. Obviously, it is universal potentially but not actually in its application.
Forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38, contextually, is speaking of a specific situation as to what Peter's hearers need to do. (People from your side view it as general conditions for all people everywhere.) In the situation that Peter was speaking to his audience, he was indicting them regarding the murder of Jesus. There was no going back and stopping it. It was already done. Under the law, they should have been killed. In fact, in the gospels, John the Baptist and Jesus had both previously announced the destruction of the nation of Israel. Since there was no possibility of restitution, God could only offer forgiveness through repentance.
This cleansing of sin was done symbolically through baptism. What was needed was the repentance of those convicted. Peter's words were "save yourselves from this untoward generation" (KJV). Save yourselves? From hell?
BTW, for what it is worth, I have no difficulties with multiple applications of baptism. The disciples of Jesus were baptized by John the Baptist and needed no brand new baptism. The only difference is that baptism took on a whole new significance. In one sense, all baptisms are "for forgiveness" broadly and generally speaking.
Do you want me to elaborate on what led us to this juncture: "eis/for the forgiveness of sin"? Did I come close to answering your question?
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/8/2009 2:40:00 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/8/2009 6:28:39 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1585
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
The shedding of His blood is speaking of His atoning death for the sins of mankind. It is not talking about the conditions man fulfills but the actions of Christ. Obviously, it is universal potentially but not actually in its application.
Still, even though its an action of Christ, in order for sins to be forgiven as a result of it, man needs to take action too, it seems to me. I realize that baptism can be considered a condition for salvation, but that is not its primary function. Baptism is about what God does, not about what man does, although man does his part before God does His part. Not that man's action obligates God, but God, throughout the New Testament links baptism with salvation.
I disagree with your assessment of the purpose of baptism, especially in Acts 2:38. I do believe its general in its application. That doesn't mean that its not specific, too, but I just don't think it has anything to do with the coming destruction of the nation of Israel.
And no, no need to elaborate on how we got here or what brought us here.
_____________________________
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
|
|
|
|
 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
