Baptismal regeneration....

We have been discussing examples of faith. The use of Abraham's unfinished sacrifice at James 2, which I have already discussed at post #97, is a passage that speaks to the fact that faith is faith regardless of completed action.

I have another relevant passage. Luke 17:12-9 says:

“Then as He entered a certain village, there met Him ten men who were lepers, who stood afar off. And they lifted up their voices and said, `Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!’ So when He saw them, He said to them, `| Go show yourselves | to the priests.’ And so it was that as they went, they were cleansed. And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, returned, and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at His feet, giving Him thanks. And he was a Samaritan. So Jesus answered and said, `Were there not ten cleansed? But where are the nine? Were there not any found who returned to give glory to God except this foreigner?’ And He said to him, `Arise, go your way. Your faith has made you well’” (NKJV|RSV 1952, NLT 1996|NKJV).​

Note the parallel between "Your faith has made you well" and Ephesians 2:8-10 "you have been saved through faith" (ESV).

The 10 lepers were all healed: “as they went, they were cleansed.” God knows all; they had NOT completed their one command to get to the priests and show themselves, yet He knew they believed and were obeying accordingly, meaning they had biblical faith, so they were healed.

This is a New Testament example. It was also a general healing of a collection of individuals, just like salvation is a general salvation.

The notion that God ONLY acts after a work motivated by faith is completed is contrary to Scripture.

 

Baptism is a Greek word, it has nothing to do with the way "we were brought up". That is irrelavant.

No, baptism is in water, unless something in the text demands otherwise. That is the common meaning when it was written.

Matt 28:18-20, they were told to go all nations and baptize people. This is water baptism. Baptism with the Holy Spirit was a promise, never a command. It was something that Jesus would do, not man. In Matt 28, the command is for men, therefore, of necessity, a baptism in water.

Furthermore it is a perpetual command. Those who were baptized, were to be taught what Jesus had commanded. Jesus had just commanded them to go teach and baptize others.

This is exactly what took place in Acts 8 and that baptism was IN WATER!

Show when this command expired or became null.

 

If you would continue reading you would read, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." - Jn 3:36

This equates belief with obedience, the same as Heb 3:18-19, "And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief."

Again, was Jesus just kidding, lying or just plain wrong when He said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."?

Why can't you believe that?

 

Mman: You are wasting your time with G. Ebersoehn.

You can see that here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35472
starting here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...t=35472&page=3 #22
and ending here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...t=35472&page=7 #63.

You can Acts 8:26-39 + Matthew 28:19-20 forever. He will never accept that Acts 8:26-39 refers to water baptism by a common Christian, and he will never accept that "always" means `non-temporary' at Matthew 28:19-20.

 

Notice verse 23, "and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God".

When was the scripture fulfilled, before or after he obeyed? It was AFTER he obeyed. Then, it could be said that he believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

 

Yes! Exactly! Hallelujah!

I know you are obsessive about forged material, and I know you direly wish Jesus said something that He did not -- http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38549 -- and you repeated it yet again in the quoted post. However I prefer to stick to genuine Scripture and words of Jesus, as John 3:36 is.

It is good you brought it up. It makes a good pair with Acts 16:31b “‘Believe on the Lord Jesus|, and you will be saved’” (ASV|NASB).

When we genuinely believe Jesus to be Lord, we submit our wills to His in obedience.

However, you equate obedience with completed action. That is incorrect. Obedience is the submission of will.

The examples of Abraham at James 2:21-3 and of the lepers at Luke 17:12-9 testify to this. Posts #97 and #101 addressed these. Abraham did not finish his commanded sacrifice because Isaac lived, and the lepers were healed before they ever got to the priests as commanded.

Acts 15:8 has “And God, who knows all hearts, gave them evidence by granting them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us” and 15:9b “He cleansed their hearts by faith” (NBV). God does not need us to complete acts to be external signs for Him to know faith; He knows the heart and acts on it. In fact, in this case it was He Who gave the evidence for others.

 

Using you "Kab" sentence example. You are correct that the sentence makes no sense as it stands alone, but what about the context. What might cause a person to say this?

If a person is mentally unbalanced. Just babbling nonsense then, yes, the two thoughts have nothing in common. However, if the statement is in answer to a question - prehaps a preschool childs question - it certainly can be seen as making sense.

The full definition of the word "and" is all about relating the two phrases:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/and

As a part of speech, the word "and" is a conjunction which, again, is all about relating the two phrases connected by the word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjunction

CA

 

Any conjunction links two distinct things.

The Greek is literally "Having stood up immerse yourself and wash off yourself the sins of you calling on the name of him."
McReynolds, Word Study Greek-English New Testament, page 519.

"Having stood up immerse yourself" is one thing, and "wash off yourself the sins of you calling on the name of him" is the other.

The two things may be related, and they may be distinct. The sentence "Repentance and obedience are part of biblical faith" is a case where "and" relates two related things. The sentence "Church of Christ preachers and Baptist preachers usually fight like cats and dogs" is a case where "and" connects two unrelated things.

From looking at the sentence structure, it looks like the "calling on the name of him" describes how we "wash off" sins. This is consistent with these translations:
1. The old 1560 English Geneva Bible in its 1602 revision: "Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB).
2. The 1568 English Bishops’ Bible: “And nowe why taryest thou? aryse, & be baptized, & wasshe away thy sinnes, in calling on the name of the Lorde” (BishB).
3. A modern literal Spanish translation: “Y ahora, ¿por qué te detienes? Levánte y sé bautizado, y lava tus pecados invocando su nombre” (LBLA) = “And now, for what to-you you-detain? Let-you-rise and you-be baptized, and wash your sins invoking His name.”

 

CA

Hi CA,

This is why I also gave this example:

Darren gave another good example and did a good job expanding on it:
Darren

Hey Darren, I like your analogy using Baptist and cofc preachers.
They have tended to fuss over the years haven't they?:laugh:

Have a good evening all!:godisgood:

 

oasis:

"There is nothing in it's definition to suggest that it's usage is for connecting thoughts contextually."

GE:

True generally. But both 'kai' and 'de' could have very distinguishing or defining meaning. "This is the saints' patience: this their keeping of God's commandments - EVEN the Faith of Jesus" ... three things one and the same, the result of the coppulative. Both can also show opposites, and mean, 'but', 'or' ...

 

Drron Steele:

"You can Acts 8:26-39 + Matthew 28:19-20 forever. He will never accept that Acts 8:26-39 refers to water baptism by a common Christian, and he will never accept that "always" means `non-temporary' at Matthew 28:19-20."

GE:

Not so! I read just the same as you, a 'commoner' baptising a 'commoner' in Acts 8:26-39. I just admit the age in which it happened and for the sake of which it happened and for the significance of it for which it happened, while you think it's your age, your own purpose, and your own assumed authority.

And I always insisted we preach the Apostle's mandate (Mt28:19-20) - even Jesus' guarantee to them; or I must preach my own pretense and presumptuousness. For which Jesus would rather condemn than commend.
In any case, you will not admit Jesus commanded baptism "in the Name .."; but will persist, 'with water'.

But I know I'm wasting my time ...

 

Thank you, Oasis.

Unfortunately, that is true. What is worse: I think they often enjoy it too much.

 

I just don't see it. The sentence construction seems to tie both "baptism" and "calling on his name" to "sins away." In other words, the physical action of baptism and the faith action of calling on His name are both part of our sins being taken away. Additionally, according to the sentence, the manner in which "sins away" happens is through washing. And the only washing action mentioned is baptism.

No need to cite more Greek to me. If, however, you want to diagram the sentence in English I'd be glad to get that info.

CA

 

The New Testament was not written in English. It was written in ancient Greek.

 

Darron,

To my question, "Which Ante-Nicene or Post-Nicene Christians support your position, or believe that the significance of baptism is something else other than baptismal regeneration?" you stated...

Are you not likewise retreating off the pages of Scripture and into the writings of men when you cite from the notes, references, and articles contained in The New Testament in the Language of the People, Expository Dictionary, So That’s Why! Bible, Life Application Bible, Word Study Greek-English New Testament, and The Full Life Study Bible New Testament?

CA

 

It is one thing to cite the opinions of church leaders from decades after the apostles. These leaders really did not care that much about Scripture. Their tendencies to do whatever they wanted led to a corrupt church that required the Reformation and the Restoration.

Their "innovations" just in the area of baptism included baptizing people before they even converted to Christianity, to accepting baptisms in modes other than what the Greek word means = immersion, to delaying baptism for fasting. There is no way I would value their opinions as equal to or above Scripture when they differ.

My cited sources provide valuable information into the language of the New Testament church in their time period. They provide valuable factual data about the culture about the New Testament church in their parts of the world and in their time period. They help us to interpret the New Testament in the ways New Testament Christians would have understood it. They enable us to correctly deal with the text of Scripture.

The Bible is the written Word of God. When I read a Scripture passage, I intend to adopt the meaning/s of its initial intended audience -- and I will use every means at my disposal in order to do that as correctly as possible. To me, what Scripture says goes -- not the opinions of men decades after the Lord's apostles all died, which is what you have appealed to.

 

Oasis:

You have been going over Acts 22:16, and how KJV "calling on the name of the Lord" is the way we "wash away" our sins, against the error that "wash away thy sins" describes baptism. You have also noticed how the conjuction kai = "and" separates this from the previous command to get up and be baptized.

1. A modern literal Spanish translation: “Y ahora, ¿por qué te detienes? Levánte y sé bautizado, y lava tus pecados invocando su nombre” (LBLA) = “And now, for what to-you you-detain? Let-you-rise and you-be baptized, and wash your sins invoking His name.”
2. The old 1560 English Geneva Bible in its 1602 revision: "Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB).
3. The 1568 English Bishops’ Bible: “And nowe why taryest thou? aryse, & be baptized, & wasshe away thy sinnes, in calling on the name of the Lorde” (BishB).

I just thought of this a few hours ago. The Greek verb tenses for "wash" and "be baptized" are the same. Therefore, "get yourself baptized" and "get yourself washed" are legitimate renderings. Now, in baptism, the person baptizing is the baptizer. Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 8:26-39, and 1 Corinthians 1 all give credit to the human baptizer in water baptism. If baptism is what washes away sins, then the mortal baptizer is the one who is washing away sins -- not the Lord.

Of course, this is biblically inconceivable. The Lord takes away sins. The "“Levantandote, bautízate” (Lacueva, Nuevo Testamento Interlineal) = "Raising-you, get-you-baptized" is one command, kai = "and" is the conjunction, and "get-you-washed of your sins calling on the name of the Lord" is the second command.

They have to be two distinct things. The doers are different.

In the first commanded reception, the baptism would be administered by a mortal party, and in the second commanded reception, the washing would be administered by the Lord.

 

Accidental double post.

 

Concerning baptismal regeneration, what helped me start to redevelop my theological position, was Paul’s conversion in Acts 9. When Paul met Christ, did Christ tell Paul all you have to do is accept me as your Lord and Savior and there’s nothing more to do? Nope. Christ said that I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise and enter the city and it shall be told you what you must do [not believe, interestingly]. Ananias was in Damascus and Paul was told by Ananias…And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.
-

 

Hi Agnus_Dei.

I go to Acts 22:16 for clarification on this: “Y ahora, ¿por qué te detienes? Levánte y sé bautizado, y lava tus pecados invocando su nombre” (LBLA) = “And now, for what to-you you-detain? Let-you-rise and you-be baptized, and wash your sins invoking His name."

Posts #108 and #117 demonstrate how this verse contains two separate but related commands. The second command is underlined.

Paul had recognized the authority of Jesus. However, he did not know that he needed to call on Him for salvation. He had not yet accepted salvation on the basis of Jesus Christ.

Again, no contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-10.