zeke
Member
Okay Stan but you need to re-think your dogma that contradicts God's word - not a good place to be my friend.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Tired of all the political strife and infighting?
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?
- Thread starter 7ruth
- Start date
Okay Stan but you need to re-think your dogma that contradicts God's word - not a good place to be my friend.
zeke
Member
I ignored nothing Stan. I addressed the special conversion of Cornelius who obeyed the Lord in baptism and Paul's sins were not washed away until he rose up and was baptized in water. You kick against the pricks.
D4Christ
Member
Hi Webb,
Ok. So if disbelief causes damnation, why is it so hard to believe the scriptures that state belief results in salvation and righteousness.
Ephes: 2
I understand that many who believed, according to the scriptures, got immediately baptized. I don't dispute that. But scriptures also show that many were called saved from the moment they believed. And according to Ehpesians it is thru belief that God saved us...unless you want to suggest that Ephesians is wrong.
For example in Acts 16,
This passage is pretty straight forward. The jailer asks what must I do to be saved....which is the issue of this thread. Paul and Silas told the man he must BELIEVE. After sharing the Word, which was necessary (faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God), then these men were baptized.
Did the baptism bring their belief and therefore salvation or did hearing and believing the Word of God save these men?
Scriptures clearly teach us that believing is the key ingredient in salvation, not an outward action, should any man care to boast.
Romans 10:
John 3:
A water baptism without belief is nothing but a free bath. It is the belief that saves.
Btw...I use the NLT version. I state that in my signature.
Blessings,
Dee
Well if this is the way you debate then I'm not sure I'm interested, as you won't take responsibility for your own comments that elicit responses.
zeke
Member
What part of Ephesians contradicts the words of Jesus...
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith. ~ The Pulpit Commentary
If one obeys the Lord in baptism is he 'earning salvation' or simply obeying that which God requires. Think Dee.These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith. ~ The Pulpit Commentary
zeke
Member
And yet you present Barnes as one of your outside sources and he contradicts your own doctrine - a doctrine that contradicts God's word. Where is your consistency Stan?
D4Christ
Member
Mark does not contradict Ephesians. And like I stated before, believers are told to be baptized. But we are also told to participate in the Lord's supper until Christ returns. Many believers do not have the opportunity to do this....will they loose their salvation?
You focus on Mark but the fact remains...there are more scriptures that absolutely state that belief is what is necessary to be saved.
So what about Acts 16 which I quoted above. Why would Paul and Silas, when directly asked what do I need to do to be saved respond with "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."?
Did they mess up? Should they have said you will be saved after you believe and we dunk you in water? Paul and Silas were being consistent with scriptures when they confirmed belief will result in salvation.
Here's a verse for you that puts baptism in the same context as being saved.
1 Peter 3
This is written in NLT but I used the KJV to analyze this in Strong's.
Instead of "pledge" the KJV uses "answer". "Answer" is defined as #G1906, an enquiry, a question, 2) a demand, 3) earnestly seeking, a) craving, an intense desire.
Baptism then cannot remove the filth of our flesh G#4561 (that human part of man prone to sin.) Baptism is the "pledge" or "intense desire" or "earnet seeking" to have a right conscience G#4893 (as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other) or be reconcilled with God.
The only way to get right with God and be saved is to believe in his Word and belief comes thru hearing the Word. Once we believe in what we hear, then we can express this desire to be right with God thru baptism. Baptism then is an expression of our inward desire to be right with God. It is an act (pledge or answer) performed by those who were saved by their belief in what they heard.
Blessings,
Dee
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Asyncritus
Guest
John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Mt 28.19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
What has He just COMMANDED them to do?
Teach and baptize.
What do you do with a command? OBEY IT.
1 Sam 12.14 If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God:
15 But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as it was against your fathers.
1 Sam 15. 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
So we have it plainly.
Here is a very clear and simple COMMAND from the Lord Christ, none other than the Son of God Himself.
We can be stubborn and rebellious, and make all manner of excuses and prevarication, lie to ourselves and calm our consciences that way.
But it is nonetheless disobedience and wickedness, being wilfully ignorant of what is the clear and unmistakable COMMAND given by the Lord.
Ye are my friends IF you DO whatsoever I command you.
Corollary:
You are my enemies if you rebel against my COMMAND.
So, people, choose you this day who you will serve. Yourselves and your own debating cleverness, or your Lord.
Choose carefully.
Mt 28.19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
What has He just COMMANDED them to do?
Teach and baptize.
What do you do with a command? OBEY IT.
1 Sam 12.14 If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God:
15 But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as it was against your fathers.
1 Sam 15. 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
So we have it plainly.
Here is a very clear and simple COMMAND from the Lord Christ, none other than the Son of God Himself.
We can be stubborn and rebellious, and make all manner of excuses and prevarication, lie to ourselves and calm our consciences that way.
But it is nonetheless disobedience and wickedness, being wilfully ignorant of what is the clear and unmistakable COMMAND given by the Lord.
Ye are my friends IF you DO whatsoever I command you.
Corollary:
You are my enemies if you rebel against my COMMAND.
So, people, choose you this day who you will serve. Yourselves and your own debating cleverness, or your Lord.
Choose carefully.
Last edited by a moderator:
D4Christ---It seems your problem in part at least is you do not understand in your reading of the scripture that faith or belief is sometimes used in the general sense and at other times in the specific. Try to "rightly divide the word of truth" as Paul tells us to do and many of your misunderstands will vanish.
stovebolts
Member
I'll be darn! How about that, I just learned a new word! :candle
Gad, now I have to read what? 10-12 pages to catch up to you guys?...
stovebolts
Member
Hi Reba,
I think you make a good point, and it makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't line up with what Peter said.
kjv: eight souls were saved by water.
asv: eight souls were saved through water.
Stan pulled up Strongs earlier on the word dia, which the kjv interprets as by, and most other versions interpret as through. Strongs starts off by saying that dia is:
a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act;
What is a preposition?
http://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/what-is-a-preposition.html
Simply, Prepositions are words that show the relationship between a noun or a pronoun and some other word or element in the rest of the sentence.
The site above says this:
One more ultra-important thing about prepositions is that they are always found in prepositional phrases.
A phrase is a group of words that lacks either a subject or a verb and functions as a single part of speech.
A prepositional phrase consists of a preposition plus a noun or pronoun, which is called the object of the preposition. The object of the preposition is the first noun or pronoun following the preposition.
Lets look at our verse:
saved dia water.
saved is a noun. dia is the primary preposition, and water is a noun / object.
So we see that the object is water because water is the first noun following the preposition dia.
The way I'm reading it as a prepositional phrase, is Water is the object, and it's relational to saved. It's just how the english language works.
Using dia as a prepositional phrase supports the definition of through that I gave earlier that stated dia in this instance was an instrument or agent. Again, the object is water, and the relationship with water in that passage is saved.
Lets look back to Strongs.
a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act;
In this case, dia indicates how an act occurs. The act was saved, and it occurred by way of water.
As a note: Stan said that the greek word for saved was sōzō back in post 494, but when I checked it out, the word was diasozo which is a combination of dia and sozo. Strongs defines it as:
to save thoroughly, i.e. (by implication or analogy) to cure, preserve, rescue, etc.:--bring safe, escape (safe), heal, make perfectly whole, save.
Anyway, the problem seems to me that both you and Stan are reading the genesis account and by a surface reading, you can't find supporting text that affirms Peter's word. In other words, you've found a contradiction and your having a tough time reconciling the differences.
This is why I told Stan that he isn't reading the Genesis account as Peter read the Genesis account. Simply put, Peter was a Jew and was raised in Torah. Peter would have had the whole bible memorized when he was 12 or 13 and he would have known oral tradition. Oral tradition is simply what we know as commentary, and while I may be wrong on this, I'm leaning that Peter was speaking out of oral tradition in this matter.
stovebolts
Member
That's not what Peter said. Please see above post to Reba.
stovebolts
Member
Stan said:
Here's the problem Stan. Your looking at the story as textual data and by doing that, you miss the story. Scripture is no longer living and active when you view it as textual data, no, you've made it dry and stale. Congratulations, you've just sucked the life out of it.
Peter still hadn't gotten to the point where he was able to reach out to the Gentiles. Why else would he have had the visioin in which he says, Acts 10:13-14 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
What is God trying to teach Peter?
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Is God talking about livestock? I don't think so. He's talking about Gentiles, and God is about to show Peter this through the account of Cornelius.
We have already shown through 1 Peter that Peter does indeed see a correlation between being saved, receiving the Holy Spirit and being saved. This is why Peter says Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Why were they astonished! Because Gentiles (aka the unclean) actually received the Holy Spirit!
This is why Peter says to them,
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
So we see that the giving of the Holy Spirit and Baptism are again related. Can you please show me one place in the NT where it isn't?
zeke
Member
And we agree – there is nothing written in the NT that contradicts the words of Jesus in Mark 16:16 – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned”. This being said we cannot negate the truth that both belief and baptism are to take place before one “shall be saved”.
Why do believers not have the opportunity to participate in the Lord's Supper?
I focus on all that God has revealed regarding the salvation of our souls and belief, repentance and baptism are all required.
Because the first step toward salvation is the faith that comes by hearing the word of God – the man or woman baptized without faith simply gets wet. Notice your passage does not mention repentance yet Jesus clearly said that the one who will not repent will not be saved.
What did the jailer do after he heard the gospel message and believe? He was immediately baptized for the remission of sins---
“And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”
Faith leads to repentance and baptism – the fruits of faith.Baptism is not about removing the filth of our flesh – it is about obeying that which God has commanded us to do. Baptism in water (a burial) is the answer of a good conscience toward God that points us to the resurrection of Christ as we are baptized into Christ - baptized into His death. Baptism remains what it has always been – an essential part of the gospel of grace.
Stove,
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
I tried to follow your English lesson... one would never know English is my only language :eeeekkk
Can you do the same with Hebrew and the verses above.....
I read the above as saying God sent the flood to destroy all flesh and the ark was the protection.
The 'baby ark' was also protection for Moses.
goina go read the English lesson some more...:yes
Added:
The original was not written in english it was most likely Arabic of Greek correct?
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
I tried to follow your English lesson... one would never know English is my only language :eeeekkk
Can you do the same with Hebrew and the verses above.....
I read the above as saying God sent the flood to destroy all flesh and the ark was the protection.
The 'baby ark' was also protection for Moses.
goina go read the English lesson some more...:yes
Added:
The original was not written in english it was most likely Arabic of Greek correct?
stovebolts
Member
I think that most people misunderstand the fuller context of that passage. There was a slogan in the Roman Empire that went, "There is no other name that one can be saved, but by the name of Cesar". Paul is primarily saying that the government can't save you.
I have found this to be true many times in Bible class where if you don't fully qualify what your about to say, then you have a pack of flies that come down and have to establish the fundamentals... and we spend more time on reaffirming the fundamentals than we do learning and growing in the rest of scripture. According to the Hebrew writer, Baptism is fundemental.
Hebrews 6:1-2 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
When Paul says what he says, it does not negate the doctrine of baptism. He is countering basic cultural ideology.
zeke
Member
antecedent - a preceding event, condition, cause, phrase, or word.
Per Peter the antecedent is not the ark - the antecedent is water, i.e., Noah was 'saved by water' and that water is “the antitype to which baptism now also saves us.†1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us - There are some various readings here in the Greek text, but the sense is not essentially varied. Some have proposed to read (ῷ hō) to which instead of (ὅ ho) which, so as to make the sense “the antitype to which baptism now also saves us.†The antecedent to the relative, whichever word is used, is clearly not the ark, but water; and the idea is, that as Noah was saved by water, so there is a sense in which water is made instrumental in our salvation. The mention of water in the case of Noah, in connection with his being saved, by an obvious association suggested to the mind of the apostle the use of water in our salvation, and hence led him to make the remark about the connection of baptism with our salvation. The Greek word here rendered “figure†- ἀντίτυπον antitupon - “antitype†means properly, “resisting a blow or impression,†(from ἀντί anti and τύπος tupos) that is, hard, solid. In the New Testament, however, it is used in a different sense; and (ἀντί anti) in composition, implies resemblance, correspondence and hence, the word means, “formed after a type or model; like; corresponding; that which corresponds to a type†- Robinson, Lexicon. The word occurs only in this place and Heb_9:24, rendered “figures.†The meaning here is, that baptism corresponded to, or had a resemblance to, the water by which Noah was saved; or that there was a use of water in the one case which corresponded in some respects to the water that was used in the other; to wit, in effecting salvation. The apostle does not say that it corresponded in all respects; in respect, e. g., to quantity, or to the manner of the application, or to the efficacy; but there is a sense in which water performs an important part in our salvation, as it did in his. ~ 1 Peter 3:21
~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us - There are some various readings here in the Greek text, but the sense is not essentially varied. Some have proposed to read (ῷ hō) to which instead of (ὅ ho) which, so as to make the sense “the antitype to which baptism now also saves us.†The antecedent to the relative, whichever word is used, is clearly not the ark, but water; and the idea is, that as Noah was saved by water, so there is a sense in which water is made instrumental in our salvation. The mention of water in the case of Noah, in connection with his being saved, by an obvious association suggested to the mind of the apostle the use of water in our salvation, and hence led him to make the remark about the connection of baptism with our salvation. The Greek word here rendered “figure†- ἀντίτυπον antitupon - “antitype†means properly, “resisting a blow or impression,†(from ἀντί anti and τύπος tupos) that is, hard, solid. In the New Testament, however, it is used in a different sense; and (ἀντί anti) in composition, implies resemblance, correspondence and hence, the word means, “formed after a type or model; like; corresponding; that which corresponds to a type†- Robinson, Lexicon. The word occurs only in this place and Heb_9:24, rendered “figures.†The meaning here is, that baptism corresponded to, or had a resemblance to, the water by which Noah was saved; or that there was a use of water in the one case which corresponded in some respects to the water that was used in the other; to wit, in effecting salvation. The apostle does not say that it corresponded in all respects; in respect, e. g., to quantity, or to the manner of the application, or to the efficacy; but there is a sense in which water performs an important part in our salvation, as it did in his. ~ 1 Peter 3:21
~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
stovebolts
Member
Hi Sister,
That is kinda cool where the word Ark in the Hebrew is only found twice in Holy Scripture huh
As far as doing another English lesson, I would rather not lol! The only reason I did it was to show Stan his error as well as to show how what he posted actually affirms what I've already laid down. If he wishes to challenge me on it, which I don't think he will, then we will be debating basic grammer, and that's about as dry of a stick one can chew on if you ask me. But gramtical rules have not bias... no spirit imo. We can go there if he wants since he brought it up.
Anyway, as far as the verse above, I do not disagree with it. But I also don't disagree with Peters words, "saved by water". One can hold two truth's and both still be true. Scripture is very rarely one sided... Actually, if you study, let alone try to live by way of the Law, you will find that it actually teaches one discernment. This is why Jesus could say to the devil, "it is also written". There are many faucets to scripture.
Now, we just have to understand the flood through Peter's bias, and not our bias...