Baptism purpose Sign of the covenant.

[e.r.m.]

I disagree.

I respect that. But as with baptism as a sign of the covenant, I don't think something so huge would have entirely missed the Bible, especially in the prescence of written contradictory teachings that did make the Bible. The cultures surrounding 1. mainstream baptism as a sign of the covenant & 2. mainstream infant baptism would have been huge and would not have been hidden from the apostles or the scriptures. Today many view these two teachings as commonplace, so would have the first century christians.

 

[sojourner]

I respect that. But as with baptism as a sign of the covenant, I don't think something so huge would have entirely missed the Bible, especially in the prescence of written contradictory teachings that did make the Bible. The cultures surrounding 1. mainstream baptism as a sign of the covenant & 2. mainstream infant baptism would have been huge and would not have been hidden from the apostles or the scriptures. Today many view these two teachings as commonplace, so would have the first century christians.

It didn't miss the bible. As I said, it's implied. The bible also doesn't specifically mention "believer's baptism," either. It, too, is implied. I opine that it became an "either/or" proposition with the changing cultural norms. You will notice that whenever Jesus talks about baptism, it's with a man. Does that mean that women were not baptized? No. But it could very well mean that their husbands made that decision for them.

 

[sincerly]

Baptism purpose ≠ Sign of the covenant.

In Rom.6:3-11, is seen the purpose for Baptism and it isn't as a sign of the covenant. Notice: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Isn't what Paul is telling here the message that Jesus is telling Nicodemus??

John3:3-17,"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Isn't that the same message seen in Titus 3:3-7, "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, [and] hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

"washing of regeneration"=(paliggenesia)
having these meanings: new birth; renewal; re-creation. (i.e.)a spiritual birth----As Jesus said in John 3.

1Pet.3:21 when one leaves off the () phrase shows the same thought---In Baptism--the raising up(Resurrection) of Christ assures the salvation of the Redeemed.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you for responding.

The Lord's Supper, yes, because Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me".
Baptism no, the greek says that the water, from vs. 20, is a representation of baptism. It does not say baptism is a representation of anything. It does say that baptism saves you.

udatos
hudatos
G5204
n_ Gen Sg n
water​

w
hO
G3739
pr Dat Sg n
to-WHICH​

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1pe3.pdf

If baptism was considered as a sign in the New Testament church, somebody would have made a reference to it. But "baptism sign" terminology is completely missing from the Bible. First century christians did not see baptism as a 'sign' of salvation. This idea is entirely a product of history, mostly from the Reformation -onward.

Baptism does not save. this is what saves: "the interrogation of a good conscience toward God,". However original Baptism as practiced by John was for repentance: Mat 3:2 Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 6 and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

So if Baptism is not efficacious but only reveals a good conscience then it is a symbolic act. However in some cases people have been known to be baptized without a good conscience and have had their consciences washed in the act. However that was never the original purpose.

 

[Muffled]

Baptism purpose ≠ Sign of the covenant.

In Rom.6:3-11, is seen the purpose for Baptism and it isn't as a sign of the covenant. Notice: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Isn't what Paul is telling here the message that Jesus is telling Nicodemus??

John3:3-17,"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Isn't that the same message seen in Titus 3:3-7, "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, [and] hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

"washing of regeneration"=(paliggenesia)
having these meanings: new birth; renewal; re-creation. (i.e.)a spiritual birth----As Jesus said in John 3.

1Pet.3:21 when one leaves off the () phrase shows the same thought---In Baptism--the raising up(Resurrection) of Christ assures the salvation of the Redeemed.

The purpose of Baptism isn't seen in Rom 6. He is simply showing how the symbolism in baptism ties into the death and resurrection of Jesus and salvation from sin. This is more than John's baptism which only symbolizes repentance.

In the sense that Jesus syncretizes John's baptism (with water) and His own (with spirit), He gives credence to the act as an entrance into the Kingdom of God. However that kingdom is spiritual and only the spiritual actions have any effect. The baptism itself is just a symbol of what is happening spiritually.

This agrees with I Peter 3:21. The conscience is cleansed but not with water. The conscience is cleansed by blood ie the forgiveness of sins. Repenteence by itself can't cleanse the conscience. The baptism of the Holy Spirit saves from sin but it doesn't cleanse the conscience.

My own testimony is an example. I turned my life over to Jesus seven years before being baptized. I was baptized in the spirit before being baptized in water but my conscience hadn't been cleansed. As a result a demon spirit was able to cause me much consternation until the Holy Spirit gave me my memory of the song "Nothing But the Blood." My conscience became cleansed and the demon no longer had any power over me.

 

[e.r.m.]

It didn't miss the bible. As I said, it's implied. The bible also doesn't specifically mention "believer's baptism," either. It, too, is implied. I opine that it became an "either/or" proposition with the changing cultural norms. You will notice that whenever Jesus talks about baptism, it's with a man. Does that mean that women were not baptized? No. But it could very well mean that their husbands made that decision for them.

As I said, it's implied
1. You've got the meanings of implied and inferred confused. Here is one of the many links on this matter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grammar Mishaps: Imply vs. Infer
What is the difference....exactly?

• TO IMPLY IS FOR THE GIVER OF INFORMATION TO SUGGEST INDIRECTLY

• TO INFER IS FOR THE RECEIVER OF INFORMATION TO MAKE A GUESS USING SPECIFIC EVIDENCE

Infer and imply are often confused, but there is a distinction between the two. When something is implied, it is suggested without being stated outright. When something is inferred, the reader is in control of drawing a conclusion that is not explicitly said. In other words, a writer implies and a reader infers. Another way to explain: information is categorized as a message, a sender and a receiver. The person sending the message implies, while the person receiving the message infers. Here are some examples for further clarification:

1. The teacher implied that the test would include chapters two and three when she winked at her students while reviewing the contents of those specific chapters.
2. The students inferred that the test would include chapters two and three because they had reviewed those chapters more than the others.

1. When I gave you a watch for Christmas, I was implying for you to be more punctual.
2. She inferred that the watch was a signal to be more punctual.

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

As you are the reader, you can only infer. The teachings you are labeling as implied, you are actually 'inferring'. The only way they could be implied from our perspective is if you somehow were able to to confirm that what you mean -is also what they meant. Then from knowing you can say, "they were trying to impl this or that." Without that, you are inferring everything they 'meant'. Therefore, the teachings of baptism as a sign of the covenant & infant baptism are only 'inferred' teachings and they can never be anything more than inferred, from a scriptural standpoint. Hence, they are highly subject to bias, in retrospect, from ideas that were developed after the Bible.


The bible also doesn't specifically mention "believer's baptism," either.
2. Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

First, Belief and Baptism go hand in hand, explicitly. I don't use the term believer's baptism. I refer to belief as a condition for baptism.
Second, Jesus said to baptize the disciples that would be made. Further, he told his disciples in vs. 20 to teach these disciples to obey everything He had commanded them, which included the command to baptize disiciples. This is self perpetuating and explicit.

You will notice that whenever Jesus talks about baptism, it's with a man. Does that mean that women were not baptized?
3. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. 15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Women were baptized. Not inferred, but explicit.

It didn't miss the bible.
4.When I say miss the Bible, I refer to not explicitly written.
Even so, with the other contradictory teachings that are explicitly written in the Bible, I think it's fair to say that if baptism as a sign of the covenant and infant baptism couldn't get one verse in, within the almost eight-thousand verses in the New Testament, they did miss the Bible.


In every way, inferred teachings do not have the weight of written scriptures, especially when they are in contradiction to the written scriptures. At least from a Biblical standpoint.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism purpose ≠ Sign of the covenant.

In Rom.6:3-11, is seen the purpose for Baptism and it isn't as a sign of the covenant. Notice: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Isn't what Paul is telling here the message that Jesus is telling Nicodemus??

John3:3-17,"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Isn't that the same message seen in Titus 3:3-7, "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, [and] hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

"washing of regeneration"=(paliggenesia)
having these meanings: new birth; renewal; re-creation. (i.e.)a spiritual birth----As Jesus said in John 3.

1Pet.3:21 when one leaves off the () phrase shows the same thought---In Baptism--the raising up(Resurrection) of Christ assures the salvation of the Redeemed.

I agree.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism does not save. this is what saves: "the interrogation of a good conscience toward God,". However original Baptism as practiced by John was for repentance: Mat 3:2 Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 6 and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

So if Baptism is not efficacious but only reveals a good conscience then it is a symbolic act. However in some cases people have been known to be baptized without a good conscience and have had their consciences washed in the act. However that was never the original purpose.

Thank you for replying.
Baptism does not save. this is what saves: "the interrogation of a good conscience toward God,". So if Baptism is not efficacious but only reveals a good conscience...
It's interesting that you would say this, despite that the verse actually does day: baptism that now saves you also, not interrogation of a good conscience toward God, that now saves you also.
Am I supposed to follow your idea, above the written scripture?

The of a good conscience toward God addresses, not negates baptism that now saves you also I don't see any negating terminology anywhere in the verse -do you? and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—well, I don't mean what I said, I mean that it's only an appeal[a] of a good conscience toward God.

then it is a symbolic act. However that was never the original purpose.
I've yet to see a scripture indicating the purpose of baptism to be a symbolic act.

Inferred teachings do not nearly carry the weight of the written scriptures, especially when they are in contradiction to the written scriptures. At least from a Biblical standpoint.

However original Baptism as practiced by John was for repentance: Mat 3:2 Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 6 and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
Then again, John didn't baptize anyone in the name of Jesus did he? The command to be baptized in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins wasn't given until after Jesus resurrected.

However in some cases people have been known to be baptized without a good conscience and have had their consciences washed in the act.
I agree, this is what the scripture says,
1 Peter 3:21 (A)Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—(B)not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a (C)good conscience—through (D)the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1-Baptism saves you.
2-Baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience "I'm getting baptized God, please give me a good conscience.'
1&2 are both done through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's all the above, not just 2.

 

[e.r.m.]

The purpose of Baptism isn't seen in Rom 6. He is simply showing how the symbolism in baptism ties into the death and resurrection of Jesus and salvation from sin. This is more than John's baptism which only symbolizes repentance.

In the sense that Jesus syncretizes John's baptism (with water) and His own (with spirit), He gives credence to the act as an entrance into the Kingdom of God. However that kingdom is spiritual and only the spiritual actions have any effect. The baptism itself is just a symbol of what is happening spiritually.

This agrees with I Peter 3:21. The conscience is cleansed but not with water. The conscience is cleansed by blood ie the forgiveness of sins. Repenteence by itself can't cleanse the conscience. The baptism of the Holy Spirit saves from sin but it doesn't cleanse the conscience.

My own testimony is an example. I turned my life over to Jesus seven years before being baptized. I was baptized in the spirit before being baptized in water but my conscience hadn't been cleansed. As a result a demon spirit was able to cause me much consternation until the Holy Spirit gave me my memory of the song "Nothing But the Blood." My conscience became cleansed and the demon no longer had any power over me.

I believe Romans 6 does indicate purpose.
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death IN ORDER THAT, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, WE TOO MAY LIVE A NEW LIFE.

But I don't see any of the symbolic act terminolgy that you keep saying.

(Trying to keep it short)

 

[Muffled]

I believe Romans 6 does indicate purpose.
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death IN ORDER THAT, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, WE TOO MAY LIVE A NEW LIFE.

But I don't see any of the symbolic act terminolgy that you keep saying.

(Trying to keep it short)

Are you saying that people who are baptised actually die and then are raised from the dead. That wasn't my experience. That is similar to believing that the wine turns into the blood of Jesus in your mouth at communion.

Are you saying that a baptism actually causes a person to die (Symbolically) and to be raised to new life (Symbolically)? How does water get this power to transform a person?

I appreciate that. I believe in the KISS principle.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you for replying.
Baptism does not save. this is what saves: "the interrogation of a good conscience toward God,". So if Baptism is not efficacious but only reveals a good conscience...
It's interesting that you would say this, despite that the verse actually does day: baptism that now saves you also, not interrogation of a good conscience toward God, that now saves you also.
Am I supposed to follow your idea, above the written scripture?

The of a good conscience toward God addresses, not negates baptism that now saves you also I don't see any negating terminology anywhere in the verse -do you? and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—well, I don't mean what I said, I mean that it's only an appeal[a] of a good conscience toward God.

then it is a symbolic act. However that was never the original purpose.
I've yet to see a scripture indicating the purpose of baptism to be a symbolic act.

Inferred teachings do not nearly carry the weight of the written scriptures, especially when they are in contradiction to the written scriptures. At least from a Biblical standpoint.

However original Baptism as practiced by John was for repentance: Mat 3:2 Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 6 and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
Then again, John didn't baptize anyone in the name of Jesus did he? The command to be baptized in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins wasn't given until after Jesus resurrected.

However in some cases people have been known to be baptized without a good conscience and have had their consciences washed in the act.
I agree, this is what the scripture says,
1 Peter 3:21 (A)Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—(B)not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a (C)good conscience—through (D)the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1-Baptism saves you.
2-Baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience "I'm getting baptized God, please give me a good conscience.'
1&2 are both done through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's all the above, not just 2.

The "baptism that now saves you" is qualified by "an appeal[a] of a good conscience toward God." It does not say that baptism is a saving grace only that it is evidence of salvation (which does not end when a person is saved but continues on through all you say and do). When I was baptised, I was already saved through a good conscience. The Baptism simply reflected that conscience.

You are supposed to rightly divide the word of truth and comprehend what you are reading.

Yes. 1Pe 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
Peter evidently sees a need to clarify what he means by baptism.

I have never seen a verse stating the purpose of the Baptism of Jesus except when He was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" but that wasn't His baptism , it was John's.

That is an error. The appeal is not to God but to a clear conscience. This verse has been re-translated to insert "God" but is that valid from the Greek or someone's interpretation of what the Greek says or even worse an effort to bring the word into line with current doctrine? When I was baptized I did not appeal to God for a clean conscience because I already had one. My baptism was primarily an act of obedience and a testimony of my faith.

Baptism didn't save me. Receiving Jesus as my Lord and Savior, saved me.

 

[e.r.m.]

Sorry it took me a while to reply.

The "baptism that now saves you" is qualified by "an appeal[a] of a good conscience toward God." Peter evidently sees a need to clarify what he means by baptism.
-Again, the rest of the verse does not negate the first, it includes and expands upon it.

It does not say that baptism is a saving grace only that it is evidence of salvation.
-Where?

The Baptism simply reflected that conscience.
-Where?


1Pe 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;


I have never seen a verse stating the purpose of the Baptism of Jesus except when He was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" but that wasn't His baptism , it was John's.
It was both. It was John's as he did the baptizing, however, the baptism of Jesus differed from everyone elses. No one else is recorded to have gotten baptized to fulfill all righteousness.


That is an error. The appeal is not to God but to a clear conscience. This verse has been re-translated to insert "God" but is that valid from the Greek or someone's interpretation of what the Greek says or even worse an effort to bring the word into line with current doctrine?

3:21 ...

​

​

​

​

w​

alla​

alla​

G235

Conj

but
suneidhsews
suneidEseOs
G4893
n_ Gen Sg f
OF-conscience
agaqhs
agathEs
G18
a_ Gen Sg f
GOOD
eperwthma
eperOtEma
G1906
n_ Nom Sg n
inquiry
eis
eis
G1519
Prep​

​

INTO​

​

​

​

​

theon​

G2316​

n_ Acc Sg m​

God​

θεός,n \{theh'-os}
[SIZE=-1]1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities 2) the Godhead, trinity 2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity 2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity 3) spoken of the only and true God 3a) refers to the things of God 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him 4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 4a) God's representative or viceregent 4a1) of magistrates and judges [/SIZE]

Yup God is there, no fabrication.​

ἐπερώτημα,n \{ep-er-o'-tay-mah}
[SIZE=-1]1) an enquiry, a question 2) a demand 3) earnestly seeking 3a) craving, an intense desire [/SIZE]
I says "good ἐπερώτημα into God."​

My baptism was primarily an act of obedience and a testimony of my faith.
-The Bible doesn't say baptism is an act of obedience or a testimony of faith. At best act of obedience or a testimony of faith is a side effect to the stated purpose.​

Receiving Jesus as my Lord and Savior, saved me.
-No scripture reference to receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior.​

 

[sincerly]

Sorry it took me a while to reply.

Receiving Jesus as my Lord and Savior, saved me.

-No scripture reference to receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior.​

e r.m., But there is. Notice:
2Pet.1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; Titus 1:14.
"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:..But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen."

"To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."

There is no repitiation of sins by/through Baptism; that is why Jesus opened the Disciples eyes following the Resurrection to all those Scriptures which testified of HIM. (Luke 24:27, 44-48)------Baptism wasn't included as a "saving" item.

 

[e.r.m.]

e r.m., But there is. Notice:
2Pet.1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; Titus 1:14.
"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:..But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen."

"To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."

There is no repitiation of sins by/through Baptism; that is why Jesus opened the Disciples eyes following the Resurrection to all those Scriptures which testified of HIM. (Luke 24:27, 44-48)------Baptism wasn't included as a "saving" item.

With all due respect, someone else tried this before.
Yes, of course Jesus is Lord and Savior and the scriptures clearly say so.

My original statement, however, was not No scripture reference for Jesus being Lord and Savior
My original statement was No scripture reference to receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Feel free to address my original statement.
Would you please also define what you mean by receiving Jesus?

Luke 24:27, 44-48 is another example of trying to exclude something where the scripture does not. Luke 24:27, 44-48 does not exclude baptism anymore than Luke 13:5 excludes belief in Christ. Has it occurred to you (I'm asking this sincerely) that scriptures that don't include a certain item (e.g. Luke 13:5 and belief), aren't necessarily excluding that item? Otherwise you're cherry picking scriptures to your liking. If it says you are saved by "this" in one or two of the salvation scriptures, it does not have to repeat that in every other salvation scripture. Not even "belief" is so universally distributed. The following passage completely does not mention belief in Jesus Christ in the text:
Titus 3:4-7
But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, [5] he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, [6] whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Yet belief in Christ is still required by other scriptures, like John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
You cannot exclude baptism from salvation on the basis that it is not included in Luke 24:27, 44-48, because it is included in other scriptures.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r.m., But there is. Notice:
2Pet.1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; Titus 1:14.
"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:..But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen."

"To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."

With all due respect, someone else tried this before.
Yes, of course Jesus is Lord and Savior and the scriptures clearly say so.

My original statement, however, was not No scripture reference for Jesus being Lord and Savior
My original statement was No scripture reference to receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Feel free to address my original statement.
Would you please also define what you mean by receiving Jesus?

Aren't you being just a little bit dishonest in the "receiving" by believers? All of them acknowledge the acceptance/receiving by the believer. Did you bother to understand the Context of those verses? Did you find another Scripture which declares that "Baptism doth also now save"---which wasn't "the like figure"??? I find No Such.

 

[e.r.m.]

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r.m., But there is. Notice:
2Pet.1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; Titus 1:14.
"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

"For if after they have esgscaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:..But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen."

"To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."



Aren't you being just a little bit dishonest in the "receiving" by believers? All of them acknowledge the acceptance/receiving by the believer. Did you bother to understand the Context of those verses? Did you find another Scripture which declares that "Baptism doth also now save"---which wasn't "the like figure"??? I find No Such.

- You said you were saved by receiving Jesus as your Lord and savior. I am asking you to define this because I see no biblical precedence for it. I missed why you were saying I might be being dishonest.

-1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Baptism was never a like figure. The water from verse 20 was the like figure toward baptism. What it says about baptism is that it saves us.

Matthew 1:21
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
A person is saved once his/her sins are forgiven, for which became the purpose of baptism after Jesus's resurrection.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It often comes down to arguing away the baptism scriptures that are written and then arguing into existence the receiving/accepting Jesus as savior for which scriptures are not written (allegedly between the lines).

 

[sincerly]

- You said you were saved by receiving Jesus as your Lord and savior. I am asking you to define this because I see no biblical precedence for it. I missed why you were saying I might be being dishonest.

There is nothing you have posted which gives Baptism the status of confering salvation to an individual. The context in which you interpret that meaning is falsely concluded.
Jesus acknowledged that one must be born-again/Baptized, But the Father gave "His SON" upon the cross that whomsoever "BELIEVETH UPON HIM"(HIS blood sacrifice in payment for one's sin debt/death)the sinner's stead should not perish, but have everlasting life. It wasn't the baptism signifying the Repentance(shedding the old man of sin) and the resurrection(arising to live a new spiritual life in full loving harmonic relationship with GOD and all Redeemed Beings) that the Believing Person was to be given Eternal life. It was in BELIEF of the Shed BLOOD of Jesus Christ.(the only means of the ("propitiation".)
vs.18, ":but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hast not believed in the name of the only begotten SON of GOD."

It wasn't that you missed """ why you were saying I might be being dishonest"""", but that you failed to understand what those verses were stating. One isn't admitted into the Kingdom without receiving and presenting the correct credentials.(The Way, the truth, and the life.)

"had received knowledge, knew it, but returned to worliness"
"mindful of the word" received it; received the same "common faith".

- -1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Baptism was never a like figure. The water from verse 20 was the like figure toward baptism. What it says about baptism is that it saves us.

Denial doesn't make it so.Vs, 20 was Peter reminding his readers that only eight souls/persons were saved by/from that water which destroyed all other living things which resided upon the land's surface. They were in the ARK
Has one received refuge in the Ark of Jesus?-- that is what is "like figure" of those verses.
The being "Born-again" is the Walking as HE Walked---the puting on of Christ Jesus.---the "Death, burial, and resurrection" with Jesus.

.
A person is saved once his/her sins are forgiven, for which became the purpose of baptism after Jesus's resurrection.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It often comes down to arguing away the baptism scriptures that are written and then arguing into existence the receiving/accepting Jesus as savior for which scriptures are not written (allegedly between the lines).

e r. m., Do I detect you saying that ALL SINNERS have to do is be forgiven one time and they cannot do anything after that event to be excluded for being saved??
Also, That being Baptized now replaces the Blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ??

That isn't what Mark's message is in that verse.

 

[Shermana]

Peter says that Baptism is:

not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.

Hmm, what does "Appeal to God for a good conscience" mean? Why would you need a good conscience if you're automatically sealed and saved with no works or behavior issues involved?

 

[e.r.m.]

Jesus acknowledged that one must be born-again/Baptized, But the Father gave "His SON" upon the cross that whomsoever "BELIEVETH UPON HIM"(HIS blood sacrifice in payment for one's sin debt/death)the sinner's stead should not perish, but have everlasting life. It wasn't the baptism signifying the Repentance(shedding the old man of sin) and the resurrection(arising to live a new spiritual life in full loving harmonic relationship with GOD and all Redeemed Beings) that the Believing Person was to be given Eternal life. It was in BELIEF of the Shed BLOOD of Jesus Christ.(the only means of the ("propitiation".) vs.18, ":but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hast not believed in the name of the only begotten SON of GOD."
No conflict between believing in the blood and baptism for forgiveness of sins. There is no scripture that makes the two mutually exclusive. There is no scripture that says belief is the only means -key word being 'only'

It wasn't that you missed """ why you were saying I might be being dishonest"""", but that you failed to understand what those verses were stating. One isn't admitted into the Kingdom without receiving and presenting the correct credentials.(The Way, the truth, and the life.)
Again, no conflict.

Denial doesn't make it so.
baptism doth also now save us does make it so.

Vs, 20 was Peter reminding his readers that only eight souls/persons were saved by/from that water which destroyed all other living things which resided upon the land's surface. They were in the ARK
Has one received refuge in the Ark of Jesus?-- that is what is "like figure" of those verses.
No conflict with baptism doth also now save us

the putting on of Christ Jesus
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

.---the "Death, burial, and resurrection" with Jesus.
Romans 6:3-4 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

e r. m., Do I detect you saying that ALL SINNERS have to do is be forgiven one time and they cannot do anything after that event to be excluded for being saved??
No. I don't believe in OSAS.

Also, That being Baptized now replaces the Blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ?? That isn't what Mark's message is in that verse.
Nor is it mine. Again, no conflict between baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the Blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

[e.r.m.]

Peter says that Baptism is:



Hmm, what does "Appeal to God for a good conscience" mean? Why would you need a good conscience if you're automatically sealed and saved with no works or behavior issues involved?

Are you asking me or sincerely?