Baptism: Essential or Not

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Salvation begins at repentance/faith/belief. Philip preached Christ to the Samaritans in Acts 8. The Bible says in verse 12 the people believed Philip's message. No contradiction there to what I said.

Acts 9:25 says "other believers" lowered Saul down in a large basket. The inference is that Saul was a believer too.

At what point did Cornelius believe? Acts 10:43 says Peter said, "...everyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven..."

I said, or meant to say, that every conversion in Acts includes either repentance OR faith OR belief. Baptism and speaking in tongues is only present 4 out of 18 times.

Personally I believe that salvation does BEGIN at faith. The problem with your and Protestant Evangelical theology is you believe "belief" is the entire new birth experience.

Acts 8 which you use as an example is a good example of what being born again looks like. I dont see how Acts 9:25 proves your point because by the time other believers let Saul down in the basket he had been baptized in water and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Corneilius received the Holy Spirit before being baptized thats true. Yet as soon as he was finished speaking in tongues he and all his household were COMMANDED by the Apostle Peter be BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.

I WONDER WHY?

Your comment on conversion misses a big point. Even tho the personal testimony of all that believed concerning the Spirit baptism is not given to us YAH has only seen fit to give us a few examples of what that looks like up close and personal.

It definitly is different than the testimonies of men today who believe they have received the Spirit upon their belief with no dynamic experience.

Actually there IS NO EXAMPLE of this in the book of Acts.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Personally I believe that salvation does BEGIN at faith. The problem with your and Protestant Evangelical theology is you believe "belief" is the entire new birth experience.

Acts 8 which you use as an example is a good example of what being born again looks like. I dont see how Acts 9:25 proves your point because by the time other believers let Saul down in the basket he had been baptized in water and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Corneilius received the Holy Spirit before being baptized thats true. Yet as soon as he was finished speaking in tongues he and all his household were COMMANDED by the Apostle Peter be BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.

I WONDER WHY?

Your comment on conversion misses a big point. Even tho the personal testimony of all that believed concerning the Spirit baptism is not given to us YAH has only seen fit to give us a few examples of what that looks like up close and personal.

It definitly is different than the testimonies of men today who believe they have received the Spirit upon their belief with no dynamic experience.

Actually there IS NO EXAMPLE of this in the book of Acts.

Peter speaking of this conversion said it was their repentance eis, or led to, eternal life.

Acts 11:18

When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

akousantev (5660) de tauta hsuxasan (5656) kai edocasan ton qeon legontev, (5723) Ara kai toiv eqnesin o qeov thn metanoian eiv zwhn edwken. (5656)

Using the 3 stepper hermeneutic it would now seem this is a contradiction to their use of eis in Acts 2:38 ... which can be translated as "for" ...

... if they conveniently seek to simply say it means "towards" ... in this instance ... then eis in Acts 2:38 does not mean to obtain.

Ultimately following the command ... which all saved believers do ... does not constitute the "new birth". Nor can this be exegeted from John 3.

Only believing on Him can be explicitly linked to the new birth. Or being born of the Spirit. (John 3 from Jesus, 1 John 5)

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DAII

Peter speaking of this conversion said it was their repentance eis, or led to, eternal life.

Acts 11:18



akousantev (5660) de tauta hsuxasan (5656) kai edocasan ton qeon legontev, (5723) Ara kai toiv eqnesin o qeov thn metanoian eiv zwhn edwken. (5656)

Using the 3 stepper hermeneutic it would now seem this is a contradiction to their use of eis in Acts 2:38 ... which can be translated as "for" ...

... if they conveniently seek to simply say it means "towards" ... in this instance ... then eis in Acts 2:38 does not mean to obtain.

Ultimately following the command ... which all saved believers do ... does not constitute the "new birth". Nor can this be exegeted from John 3.

Only believing on Him can be explicitly linked to the new birth. Or being born of the Spirit. (John 3 from Jesus, 1 John 5)

This is for you, Dan, courtesy of those who really know their Greek.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on “Eis”
By WAYNE JACKSON
September 3, 2001
Bookmark and Share

On the day of Pentecost, at the conclusion of his presentation, the apostle Peter issued the following command.
“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto [‘for’ KJV] the remission of your sins . . .” (Acts 2:38 ASV).
The Greek preposition eis (for/unto) has long been a point of controversy between those who believe that baptism is essential to salvation, and those who repudiate that idea. It has been common over the years for scholars to allege that eis has a causal force, i.e., its meaning actually conveys this thought: “. . . be baptized because of the remission of your sins.” “Forgiveness,” it is claimed, is received at the point of faith — and that alone.
A.T. Robertson, the premier Baptist grammarian, argued this case in his famous work, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, 35-36). In addition, J.R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion) (see: H.E. Dana & J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04). Those of the Baptist persuasion constantly appeal to Robertson and Mantey as authorities on this matter.
It has been a matter of long-standing knowledge, however, that the standard Greek lexicons do not define eis as “because of” with reference to Acts 2:38. J.H. Thayer, for instance, translated the term as follows, citing Acts 2:38 — “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, 94). Wm. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, in a section where eis is defined as expressing “purpose,” with the sense of “in order to,” rendered the same phrase: “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven . . . Acts 2:38:” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, 228).
Elliger states that eis, in Acts 2:38, is designed “to indicate purpose” (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, Vol. 1, 399). In his discussion of Acts 2:38, Ceslas Spicq noted: “Water baptism is a means of realizing this conversion, and its goal — something altogether new — is a washing, ‘the remission of sins’” (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 1, 242). It is hardly necessary to pile up additional testimony.
That brings me to this point. In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing!
Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that “eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 1952 129-30; 71 1953 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370).
It is not that Prof. Wallace has come to the conviction that baptism is essential for salvation. No, he resorts to other manipulations to resist that conclusion.
He has, however, rebuffed a long-defended argument that eis means “because of.” We are happy for that progress, and we, with genuine sincerity, pray that many of our Protestant, “faith-only” friends will make even further advancements toward the truth of the first-century gospel.
http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...quibble-on-eis

[Michael The Disciple]

Dan

Only believing on Him can be explicitly linked to the new birth. Or being born of the Spirit.

Theres where you miss it. You limit faith to that moment one first believes. Actually faith is the vehicle that takes you on the journey of the life with Christ.

[Michael The Disciple]

Consider this:

You all that teach "faith alone" for the new birth say you really believe in baptism and it really is "important". How can you explain the drive the Apostles and Ministry of the early Church had to see a believer baptized IMMEDIATELY?

You know like at Pentecost when as many as gladly received the word were baptized that day. Like when Phillip is out in the DESERT where normally no water should even be yet as he PREACHED CHRIST to the eunuch he said "here is water what hinders me from being baptized"?.

As if preaching Christ would INCLUDE PREACHING baptism. And when Saul was converted Anannias says first thing "rise and be baptized calling on the name of the Lord washing away thy sins". Like when the Phillipian jailer and family were baptized THE SAME HOUR OF THE NIGHT.

Your belief cannot explain this urgency. The only thing that CAN explain it is they understood what Jesus taught and commanded them to teach. That baptism was an essential part of the new birth.

I mean Billy Grahm, Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll and these Evangelical teachers have no scriptural backing for their "conversions" that replace water baptism with a pat on the back and a exhortation to join the Church of your choice.

Yet todays Apostolics for some reason seem like they are rushing headlong to be united to Evangelical teaching.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Theres where you miss it. You limit faith to that moment one first believes. Actually faith is the vehicle that takes you on the journey of the life with Christ.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Stephanas

Baptism is an essential act of obedience for every saved person.

Every conversion in the Bible includes water baptism.

Some conversions in the Bible include speaking in tongues.


I think water baptism is referred to in James (indirectly) when he speaks of showing faith by our works.

Even this one-stepper believes in the essentiality of obedience-- yet it is not the act of being baptized that saves, but the faith behind the act. Just like it is not the abstinence from sin that keeps us saved, but the love and faith behind our abstinence-- which is only in our hearts by the kindness (Grace) of God.

If it is our refrain from sin that keeps us saved, are we unsaved once we sin? No. The Bible states the soul that continues to sin shall die.


However, if my summation is not Biblical, feel free to correct me.

[deacon blues]

What about the thief on the cross? Was he saved? Why does heaven rejoice of one soul that repents if they are still bound for hell?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Again, what about the thief on the cross? Why wasn't he baptized before entering paradise with Christ? What about the house of Cornelius? Filled with the HG before baptism? Were they unsaved?

Thief was OT

[Stephanas]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Thief was OT

LUKE 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it."

Under what Old Testament principle or promise was the thief forgiven and offered a place in Paradise?

JOHN 1:17 "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."