Featured Does Acts 2:38 REALLy teach water baptism requiredto be saved?

In the Greek there is no purpose clause for "for the remission of sins," just a prepositional phrase with eis as the preposition. I would translate it, "Be baptized on account of the remission of sins" (with that as the basis for the baptism, in other words). A simply solution for what is a simple Greek problem.

A. T. Robertson points out parallel passages for this usage in his Word Pictures:
"It is seen in Mt 10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophêtou, dikaiou, mathêtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mt 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kêrugma Iôna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné generally."

 

Ohhh, you all are making 'saved' to mean regeneration!

Never mind.

 

What about this verse. Luke 5:14. Jesus has just healed a leper.

Here, it seems clear that "for" means "because of" instead of "in order to."

 

The 40th verse plainly says 'Save yourselves'. Baptism HAS to be part of what they had to do to 'Save yourselves'.

Had to be. It's just too plain, too cut & dried, that's what they had to do to be 'saved'.

 

It's the same exact thing that Christ said:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved........ Mk 16:16

They had to get themselves baptized in order to be saved! Why is that so hard to accept?

 

That's a large helping of baloney. :tongue3: You reject both the English (Tom's post) and Greek (my post) grammar of v. 38 to fit your theory. You can't change the meaning of v. 38 just to make v. 40 (after "many other words") fit it.

Have to go to church. It's Sunday morning in Japan.

 

If you don't believe, are you condemned in that verse? Yes. But if you are not baptized in that verse are you condemned? No. The Scripture is plain. You don't have to agree with the Ch. of Christ on that one either.

 

The question, then, is:
Saved in what way?
Saved from what?
Saved to what?

What is this saved you speak of?

Mind you, I'm not advocating a narrow "saved from hell, going to heaven" point of view, merely asking for yours.

I see about a half dozen ways in which "saved" is used in the NT, and the least of all uses denotes being converted, saved from hell, going to heaven, or any if the typical synonyms

So how do you define saved, and how does it apply to baptism?

BTW, I see no water in Mark 16:16

 

As usual James, you are actually using your own personal judgment in the matter. Kudos to you.

Baptism is an act of profession, in the case of the Jews of 'that generation' profession was required of them in order to 'save', to 'deliver', themselves from the wrath to come upon that generation.

When Peter says, "Save yourselves", he is not saying "Send yourselves to heaven". He is saying, 'Escape the wrath to come'.

 

No baloney.

No rejection. No 'theory'. It's context:

....Save yourselves from this crooked generation. They then that received his word were baptized....

Exactly as Christ instructed:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved....

Exactly as Peter said (again):

which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism...

 

Nope.

Acts 2, NASB
40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" [Emphasis added]​

It's a passive verb, indicating an action perpetrated on the subject of the sentence with no active participation by the subject, and it's the same in both Greek and English. Coulda saved yourself a whole lot of grief and aggravation by using a good translation.

 

Lol, so what are pretending to be now d-CON? A modern linguistics translator?

I'll wait for JoJ's comments.

 

I find myself appreciating your take on baptism as a whole. Not sure I would apply Mk 16:16 in that manner, as I see it being a parallel to Romans 10:9-10. But it is simply lacking any context for me to be dogmatic as to its application.

Good stuff on those who were at John's baptism, and baptism as a form of confession.

I think some of your word usages have many people tripped up. When "saved" always means conversion and regeneration, or going to heaven, it's hard to get what you mean.

That's why I try to ask.

Good stuff

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

:thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

As James pointed out, the Greek word for saved (sozo) has a wide range of meaning. It is even used for healing (delivery from sickness) in Matt. 9:21, etc. Here Peter doesn't say "saved from sin" or "Hell," but from "this...generation." That was the generation that crucified Christ, so if you stuck with that generation you could not believe in Christ and be "saved" from sin. Peter is saying, "Deliver yourselves from this generation so you can be soteriologically saved from sin."

And he that believeth and attends church will also be saved. It is the believing that saves, not the baptism, otherwise Jesus would have added, "and he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be condemned."

But Peter was talking about salvation in the sense of a physical salvation, not soteriological, because he referred to those in the ark who were physically saved from the flood. Again, the Greek word has a wide range of meaning. Context decides which meaning we should take. Those in the ark were already believers, they were simply physically saved. So if we are saved by a clear conscience as in this verse, it is not soteriological, but something else. The physical action of baptism, being compared to the physical salvation of the ark, is referring to being saved from a life of disobedience, which life has serious consequences to the believer.

Edited in: I edited, taking out a couple of extra returns, then clicked on "save" to "save" my changes. So this post is now eternally "saved," is it not?? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Actually, it could just as easily be translated as a middle verb, since the passive and middle have the same form. That's why the KJB, ESV and many other translations have "save yourselves." I think the middle is much more likely here.

 

Extrapolating doctrine from the Book of Acts is a complicated task. Acts is a transitional book. It contains both doctrine and practices; some of the latter which are not normative for the Church today, i.e. Apostles gathered (1:13); tongues of fire (2:3); gift of languages (2:6); communal nature of the early church (2:42-47); miraculous healing (3:7, 8); Apostolic command (5:5, 20); exorcism (5:16); angelic visitation (5:19); et. al. Baptism was often linked to a profession of faith because it created a public break from either the dead ritualistic Judaism or rank paganism of the day. It is very similar to James' statement that faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:20). God predestined that believers should abound in good works; both as a consequence of their faith and as proof of it (Eph. 2:10). But are we able to say that good works save? No. Good works do not save anymore than baptism saves.

Acts 2:5 tells us the audience that Peter would preach to was primarily Jewish. When Peter finished his sermon the collective Jewish audience was "pierced to the heart" (2:37). Peter was acquainted with the ministry of the John the Baptist (John 1:19-28) since Andrew, his brother, was a disciple of John (1:40). The Gospel of Luke provides more insight into John's baptism: John 3:3 "And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". In verse 8 we read about those who were coming to be baptized, "Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance and do not begin to say, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." It is interesting that John did not pronounce those who were water-baptized "saved". Those who were coming to be baptized were predominately Jewish. John knew the dead legalism of the Jewish faith at that time. He knew that, lead by the Pharisees, the people would turn John's baptism into nothing more than a pious work. Religious chest thumping. The true sign that repentance had taken place was a changed life. That is only possible through the new birth.

Being acquainted with the baptism of John, Peter insisted that the Jews in Acts 2 not only repent, but be baptized. They must identify with their now risen Lord and make a public declaration which would forever separate themselves from dead ritualistic Judaism. It was a serious act because it would result in their excommunication from the Jewish faith and Jewish society. To turn baptism into a requirement for salvation is to misunderstand the text and to pervert the Gospel. Indeed, while baptism is a commanded step of obedience, it is not capable of regenerating the soul. The Philippian jailer was told, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31). In his great treatise on justification by faith (Rom. 4-5), Paul never once mentions baptism. When he finally does mention baptism (Rom. 6:3), it is baptisms symbolism that is stressed, "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 6:11).

During the patristic age baptism was often withheld from people as a form of political, civil, or religious penalty. This was a serious matter because many in the early church considered baptism necessary for salvation. This mistreatment of baptism later became and effective weapon of the Roman Catholic Church which would threaten individuals with the denial of its sacraments as a means of forcing obedience.

Baptism is important. Those who contemn the ordinance commit a serious error. Willful refusal to submit to baptism could be a sign of an unregenerate (rebellious) heart. But some individuals, like the thief on the cross, had no opportunity to submit to water baptism. If someone believes water baptism is required for salvation, then there is no exception clause. Jesus would have lied when he told the thief, "Today you will be with me in paradise."

The teaching that water baptism is a required component of salvation must be strongly opposed and condemned.

 

I see. So, in order to be saved, one must be baptized and believe, but in order to be condemned, one doesn't have to not be baptized?

How can that be? If baptism saves, then why doesn't not being baptized condemn?

Oh, I didn't realize you were Catholic.

Out of curiosity, did you notice that the portion you quoted began in the middle of the passage?

Here's the whole passage:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20becausee they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

You realize that this passage, when taken in context, says that we're saved by the ark, which is Christ and His atoning work, and not through baptism.

Baptism corresponds to the ark, not to the flood.

Notice also, that it says that baptism doesn't make us clean.

But you only came to that conclusion by quoting half of the passage.

 

that's why we're PRIMITIVE Baptists. We stick to what Scripture says, and kyredneck has shown scripture after scripture after scripture that says baptism and salvation goes hand in hand.
now if he starts to explain WHICH salvation requires baptism then you all are going to question......what ?
his sanity ?
:laugh: