Gift of the Bed

Saxon

Active member
A father and a son, along with the father’s brother lived together in a comfortable and well-established home. They were without need and desired to be as helpful as they could in their community.

One day the father told his son about a family that lived just down the road a few miles. He had learned that the family of 3 had no bed for any of the occupants. The father asked the son if he would be willing to sacrifice his large bed for their neighbours. The son immediately agreed to let his bed go to the family down the road.

The son immediately removed the bedding from the bed and started the process of cleaning and repairing any damage and signs of wear. It was a large bed so during the days that the fixing cleaning of the bed, the son would sleep on the floor.

Finally, when all the work was completed by the son, his uncle came with a long box half ton and put the now repaired and cleaned disassembled bed into the vehicle. He took some time to write the assembly instructions for the new owners of the bed on how to assemble it after they got it into their house. Along with the instructions the uncle put in a box, the few tools that would be needed to assemble it and some new sheets, blankets and pillows to complete the gift. He also wrote a letter to the family down the road; a letter to explain to who and why the gift was offered. He wanted to reassure them that the gift was for their benefit.

The bed was delivered and left in the yard close to a large side door. When the family arrive home and found the bed and the box containing the tools, bedding and the writings they were suspicious and carefully inspected the items found at their side door. After finding and reading the instructions and the letter of explanation They all agreed that they should accept the generous gift. This was the first night that they had ever experienced a good, restful night’s sleep.

A question. Which of the following acts was responsible for the good night’s sleep, the love of the father to the family down the road, the sacrifice of the son, the delivery of the bed and the letter that convinced the family that the offered gift was going to be good for them or the family accepting the gift and following the written instructions?

If the love of the father was not there it would not have happened. If the sacrifice of the son was not made it would not have happened. If the uncle had not convinced the family that the gift as a legitimate gift offered to them it would not have happened. If the family had rejected the gift, it would not have happened.

I would like to submit that the father, son and uncle did an act of grace. The family had grace to receive the gift. It should be noted that the family received the gift before the work of reassembly of the bed had begun. What was responsible for the goodnight’s sleep was by grace alone.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest any man should boast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
A father and a son, along with the father’s brother lived together in a comfortable and well-established home. They were without need and desired to be as helpful as they could in their community.

One day the father told his son about a family that lived just down the road a few miles. He had learned that the family of 3 had no bed for any of the occupants. The father asked the son if he would be willing to sacrifice his large bed for their neighbours. The son immediately agreed to let his bed go to the family down the road.

The son immediately removed the bedding from the bed and started the process of cleaning and repairing any damage and signs of wear. It was a large bed so during the days that the fixing cleaning of the bed, the son would sleep on the floor.

Finally, when all the work was completed by the son, his uncle came with a long box half ton and put the now repaired and cleaned disassembled bed into the vehicle. He took some time to write the assembly instructions for the new owners of the bed on how to assemble it after they got it into their house. Along with the instructions the uncle put in a box, the few tools that would be needed to assemble it and some new sheets, blankets and pillows to complete the gift. He also wrote a letter to the family down the road; a letter to explain to who and why the gift was offered. He wanted to reassure them that the gift was for their benefit.

The bed was delivered and left in the yard close to a large side door. When the family arrive home and found the bed and the box containing the tools, bedding and the writings they were suspicious and carefully inspected the items found at their side door. After finding and reading the instructions and the letter of explanation They all agreed that they should accept the generous gift. This was the first night that they had ever experienced a good, restful night’s sleep.

A question. Which of the following acts was responsible for the good night’s sleep, the love of the father to the family down the road, the sacrifice of the son, the delivery of the bed and the letter that convinced the family that the offered gift was going to be good for them or the family accepting the gift and following the written instructions?

If the love of the father was not there it would not have happened. If the sacrifice of the son was not made it would not have happened. If the uncle had not convinced the family that the gift as a legitimate gift offered to them it would not have happened. If the family had rejected the gift, it would not have happened.

I would like to submit that the father, son and uncle did an act of grace. The family had grace to receive the gift. It should be noted that the family received the gift before the work of reassembly of the bed had begun. What was responsible for the goodnight’s sleep was by grace alone.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest any man should boast.

Did they bother to tell them about the fire plan.
.
 
A father and a son, along with the father’s brother lived together in a comfortable and well-established home. They were without need and desired to be as helpful as they could in their community.

One day the father told his son about a family that lived just down the road a few miles. He had learned that the family of 3 had no bed for any of the occupants. The father asked the son if he would be willing to sacrifice his large bed for their neighbours. The son immediately agreed to let his bed go to the family down the road.

The son immediately removed the bedding from the bed and started the process of cleaning and repairing any damage and signs of wear. It was a large bed so during the days that the fixing cleaning of the bed, the son would sleep on the floor.

Finally, when all the work was completed by the son, his uncle came with a long box half ton and put the now repaired and cleaned disassembled bed into the vehicle. He took some time to write the assembly instructions for the new owners of the bed on how to assemble it after they got it into their house. Along with the instructions the uncle put in a box, the few tools that would be needed to assemble it and some new sheets, blankets and pillows to complete the gift. He also wrote a letter to the family down the road; a letter to explain to who and why the gift was offered. He wanted to reassure them that the gift was for their benefit.

The bed was delivered and left in the yard close to a large side door. When the family arrive home and found the bed and the box containing the tools, bedding and the writings they were suspicious and carefully inspected the items found at their side door. After finding and reading the instructions and the letter of explanation They all agreed that they should accept the generous gift. This was the first night that they had ever experienced a good, restful night’s sleep.

A question. Which of the following acts was responsible for the good night’s sleep, the love of the father to the family down the road, the sacrifice of the son, the delivery of the bed and the letter that convinced the family that the offered gift was going to be good for them or the family accepting the gift and following the written instructions?

If the love of the father was not there it would not have happened. If the sacrifice of the son was not made it would not have happened. If the uncle had not convinced the family that the gift as a legitimate gift offered to them it would not have happened. If the family had rejected the gift, it would not have happened.

I would like to submit that the father, son and uncle did an act of grace. The family had grace to receive the gift. It should be noted that the family received the gift before the work of reassembly of the bed had begun. What was responsible for the goodnight’s sleep was by grace alone.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest any man should boast.
Analogies always break down, but since baptism is something done to the baptized I don't see how the instructions and the reassembly of the bed fit at all.
 
Analogies always break down, but since baptism is something done to the baptized I don't see how the instructions and the reassembly of the bed fit at all.
Analogies always break down, agreed. Analogies are also not scriptures; if a person sees what is being brought out: job done. The instructions are representative of the Bible.

Please explain ; baptism is something done to the baptized. Thank you.
 
Analogies always break down, agreed. Analogies are also not scriptures; if a person sees what is being brought out: job done.
Agreed.
The instructions are representative of the Bible.
Ok, thanks for the explanation. After thinking about your post for a while that came to be a possibilty.
Please explain ; baptism is something done to the baptized. Thank you.
In Scripture the person being baptized is passive. For example, baptism, the acting nominative, does now save you, the passive object, through the resurrection of Christ. In short, the one working in baptism is God as it is from Him as well as all of its benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
Agreed.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. After thinking about your post for a while that came to be a possibilty.

In Scripture the person being baptized is passive. For example, baptism, the acting nominative, does now save you, the passive object, through the resurrection of Christ. In short, the one working in baptism is God as it is from Him as well as all of its benefits.
Definition of sacrament: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
b: a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament
2 a: COMMUNION sense 2a
b: BLESSED SACRAMENT
3: something likened to a religious sacrament
saw voting as a sacrament of democracy

Definition of Means: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
2 means plural in form but singular or plural in construction: something useful or helpful to a desired end
3 means plural: resources available for disposal
especially: material resources affording a secure life
by all means:
most assuredly: CERTAINLY
by means of
through the use of
by no means

Definition of grace: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b: a virtue coming from God
c: a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine assistance
2a: approval, favor
stayed in his good graces
b archaic: mercy, pardon
c: a special favor: privilege

Definition of unmerited: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
not adequately earned or deserved: not merited

The term “sacrament” is a term that is not sourced from the Bible. The term by definition is contrary to the Bible as it suggests that there is something that a human can do that will be a means, or something useful or helpful to a desired end. This desired end is grace from God. The term “means of grace” is also not sourced from the Bible.

The term “grace” is sourced from the Bible. Grace is, in the English language, an unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification, a virtue coming from God. Unmerited is defined as “not adequately earned or deserved, not merited”.

Seeing that the term, sacrament is not a term that is in the Bible nor is it even alluded to, as the word “trinity” is, there is no use to believe the idea that performing a sacrament is going to cause the grace that is an unmerited virtue from God to rest upon or have any benefit to the participant of the so-called sacrament.

Hebrews 1:2 and 3 states emphatically that Jesus, by himself, has purged our sins. A sacrament, a means of grace, indicates that what Jesus has done to purge our sins was not enough, seeing that we now are required to participate in an action that will some how induce God to give what was a gift in the first place. If our action some how obligates God to give us grace, then it has become a work of man and no longer grace.

Hebrews 1:2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Definition of purged: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary
transitive verb
1a: to clear of guilt
b: to free from moral or ceremonial defilement

By not reading and understanding what is written in the Bible, we are negating the Word of God and making the sacrifice of Christ of no affect. If salvation can be achieved by our own actions, by way of what we have deemed as a means of grace, we eliminate the need of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and have pulled ourselves up by our own boot straps.

Jesus Christ is the only means of grace that there is.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

A question to be asked is How did Jesus become the means of grace? Read the following scriptures.

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him

Hebrews 1:2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Hebrews 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1 Peter 1:18 forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1 Peter 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1 John 1:7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Has the blood of Jesus been forgotten? It seems that way. There is not a hint that there is any other means of Grace involved with salvation by the grace of God.

Purchased with his own blood; now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works; the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin; washed us from our sins in his own blood; and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood; made them white in the blood of the Lamb; by himself purged our sins. With statements such as these, where is there room for another means of grace? Why hold on to useless traditions of men that are in direct contradiction to the authority of Christ and scriptures??

Jesus became the only means of grace by his sinless life, becoming qualified to be the only true sacrifice for our sins. The Old Testament sacrifices were a mere shadow of the true sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. What has the power to accomplish anything, the shadow or the real item that casts the shadow?

The so-called sacraments at the worst are traditions of men that have crept in to corrupt the truth of the Bible. (See Mark 7:8 and Colossians 2:8) The so-called sacraments, at the best, are only shadows of the real, and the real can only be Christ.

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
 
Definition of sacrament: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
b: a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament
2 a: COMMUNION sense 2a
b: BLESSED SACRAMENT
3: something likened to a religious sacrament
saw voting as a sacrament of democracy

Definition of Means: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
2 means plural in form but singular or plural in construction: something useful or helpful to a desired end
3 means plural: resources available for disposal
especially: material resources affording a secure life
by all means:
most assuredly: CERTAINLY
by means of
through the use of
by no means

Definition of grace: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b: a virtue coming from God
c: a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine assistance
2a: approval, favor
stayed in his good graces
b archaic: mercy, pardon
c: a special favor: privilege

Definition of unmerited: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
not adequately earned or deserved: not merited

The term “sacrament” is a term that is not sourced from the Bible. The term by definition is contrary to the Bible as it suggests that there is something that a human can do that will be a means, or something useful or helpful to a desired end. This desired end is grace from God. The term “means of grace” is also not sourced from the Bible.

The term “grace” is sourced from the Bible. Grace is, in the English language, an unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification, a virtue coming from God. Unmerited is defined as “not adequately earned or deserved, not merited”.

Seeing that the term, sacrament is not a term that is in the Bible nor is it even alluded to, as the word “trinity” is, there is no use to believe the idea that performing a sacrament is going to cause the grace that is an unmerited virtue from God to rest upon or have any benefit to the participant of the so-called sacrament.
Thanks for posting the definitions, but to be consistent if you acknowledge grace to be sourced through English then why not acknowledge that sacrament is sourced through Latin? It is not as if it is a special pleading because English borrows many words from Latin.

The grace or unmerited favor of God in baptism is based upon the promises of God and which upon He stakes His name rather than upon an ex opere operato, because of the work worked, mechanism. Promises, especially from God, can only rightly be received through faith since they depend on the one who gives the promise.
Hebrews 1:2 and 3 states emphatically that Jesus, by himself, has purged our sins. A sacrament, a means of grace, indicates that what Jesus has done to purge our sins was not enough, seeing that we now are required to participate in an action that will some how induce God to give what was a gift in the first place. If our action some how obligates God to give us grace, then it has become a work of man and no longer grace.
That is again backwards because it denies the promises of God in baptism. Since God is the one who promises in baptism and delivers in baptism those who deny His promises or deny He delivers in baptism are by definition unbelievers in this regard.
Hebrews 1:2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Sure, there is no problem with any of the verses you cited in this thread when they are understood according to their God given perfect immediate context. The Holy Spirit is the best teacher.
Definition of purged: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary
transitive verb
1a: to clear of guilt
b: to free from moral or ceremonial defilement

By not reading and understanding what is written in the Bible, we are negating the Word of God and making the sacrifice of Christ of no affect.
That is indeed what you are doing. The sacrifice of Christ can only be rightly received through faith.
If salvation can be achieved by our own actions, by way of what we have deemed as a means of grace, we eliminate the need of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and have pulled ourselves up by our own boot straps.
Baptism is not our own action. The person being baptized passively suffers the work of God. That's why infants are especially suited for baptism. Unless you receive the kingdom of God as an infant...
Jesus Christ is the only means of grace that there is.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
If Jesus is the only means of grace then why do you deny the benefits of baptism into Him? When the risen Lord opened the minds of His disciples to understand the Scriptures, Luke 24:44ff, He told them that the forgiveness of sins would be preached in His name beginning at Jerusalem. His disciples then preached baptism in His name for the forgiveness of sins beginning at Jerusalem, Acts 2.
A question to be asked is How did Jesus become the means of grace? Read the following scriptures.

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him

Hebrews 1:2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Hebrews 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1 Peter 1:18 ; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 5:9; Revelation 7:14 <texts of passages snipped because of character limitation and no disagreement on actual text>
Sure, none of which excludes baptism as a method or means of applying the person and work of Christ to people, see Luke 24 and Acts 2.
Has the blood of Jesus been forgotten? It seems that way. There is not a hint that there is any other means of Grace involved with salvation by the grace of God.
It only seems to be that way to people who understand Scripture in a different way than the disciples whose minds were opened to understand Scripture by the risen Lord.
Purchased with his own blood; now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works; the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin; washed us from our sins in his own blood; and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood; made them white in the blood of the Lamb; by himself purged our sins. With statements such as these, where is there room for another means of grace? Why hold on to useless traditions of men that are in direct contradiction to the authority of Christ and scriptures??
Your disagreement is with the word of God since baptism into Christ is a means or method of how God applies His grace in Christ Jesus to men.
Jesus became the only means of grace by his sinless life, becoming qualified to be the only true sacrifice for our sins. The Old Testament sacrifices were a mere shadow of the true sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. What has the power to accomplish anything, the shadow or the real item that casts the shadow?
In your terms, the real item affirms and promotes baptism for discipling all peoples, the forgiveness of sins, the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, etc.
The so-called sacraments at the worst are traditions of men that have crept in to corrupt the truth of the Bible. (See Mark 7:8 and Colossians 2:8) The so-called sacraments, at the best, are only shadows of the real, and the real can only be Christ.
<snipped because of character limitation>
Your interpretations are at odds with what you call the "real item" and what He said and did according to the scriptural witness.
 
Thanks for posting the definitions, but to be consistent if you acknowledge grace to be sourced through English then why not acknowledge that sacrament is sourced through Latin? It is not as if it is a special pleading because English borrows many words from Latin.
You are misunderstanding my statement. What I was trying to say was the term, grace, is an English word. The origin of the term is of no consequences as we are using it in the English language. The same is true with the term, sacrament.
The grace or unmerited favor of God in baptism is based upon the promises of God and which upon He stakes His name rather than upon an ex opere operato, because of the work worked, mechanism. Promises, especially from God, can only rightly be received through faith since they depend on the one who gives the promise.
Please explain what you mean by, "The grace or unmerited favor of God in baptism is based upon the promises of God".
That is again backwards because it denies the promises of God in baptism. Since God is the one who promises in baptism and delivers in baptism those who deny His promises or deny He delivers in baptism are by definition unbelievers in this regard.
Backwards??? I find it to be in the proper order. It states that our sins were purged by Jesus by himself, eliminating baptism or anything else purported to save us. "For by grace are we saved".

What is your biblical support for your statement, "the promises of God in baptism"? You are basically making a statement of condemnation so support would be needed in order to see if you statement is true.

Hebrews 1:2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Sure, there is no problem with any of the verses you cited in this thread when they are understood according to their God given perfect immediate context. The Holy Spirit is the best teacher.

That is indeed what you are doing. The sacrifice of Christ can only be rightly received through faith.

Baptism is not our own action. The person being baptized passively suffers the work of God. That's why infants are especially suited for baptism. Unless you receive the kingdom of God as an infant...
Look at the great commission verses. You have Jesus commanding the believers to go and make disciples and baptize them. Why would God be doing what was clearly given man to do. A human immersing another human into water?
If Jesus is the only means of grace then why do you deny the benefits of baptism into Him? When the risen Lord opened the minds of His disciples to understand the Scriptures, Luke 24:44ff, He told them that the forgiveness of sins would be preached in His name beginning at Jerusalem. His disciples then preached baptism in His name for the forgiveness of sins beginning at Jerusalem, Acts 2.
Are you referring to baptism into Christ or baptism into water? There is a difference. What are the benefits of baptism into him, as you understand them?
Sure, none of which excludes baptism as a method or means of applying the person and work of Christ to people, see Luke 24 and Acts 2.
They all exclude baptism. They all state that Jesus sacrifice on the cross purchased us, justified us and purged our our sins. There is no need or possible thing that we can do to do what has been done by Jesus.

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him

Hebrews 1:2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Hebrews 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
It only seems to be that way to people who understand Scripture in a different way than the disciples whose minds were opened to understand Scripture by the risen Lord.
But those opened minds wrote the New Testament. Are you suggesting that the New Testament can't be trusted??
Your disagreement is with the word of God since baptism into Christ is a means or method of how God applies His grace in Christ Jesus to men.
No, I am in agreement with the word of God as it is says that baptism is what Christians do, not what sinners do to get saved.
In your terms, the real item affirms and promotes baptism for discipling all peoples, the forgiveness of sins, the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, etc.
The "real item" affirms that he did the complete job and there is nothing else for us to do. We are saved by grace through faith. Once we are saved we live the Christian life and become the Christians that God created us in Christ Jesus to be. Salvation is free, but living the life has its consequences. The world will hate you.
Your interpretations are at odds with what you call the "real item" and what He said and did according to the scriptural witness.
 
You are misunderstanding my statement. What I was trying to say was the term, grace, is an English word. The origin of the term is of no consequences as we are using it in the English language. The same is true with the term, sacrament.
Ok, but just for the record, the words grace and sacrament are on equal footing in that both are sourced from the Bible and both come to us from Latin.

How people use these terms will differ depending on emphasis and context, for example, grace as unmerited favor and also as gift. In the same way the term sacrament doesn't have a one size fits all use and it too depends on emphasis and context.
Please explain what you mean by, "The grace or unmerited favor of God in baptism is based upon the promises of God".
God has promised and he delivers on those promises in baptism into Christ, for example, the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. God freely gave baptism on account of His promise and for His name's sake. Man doesn't earn or merit baptism nor the gifts given in baptism into Christ.
Backwards??? I find it to be in the proper order. It states that our sins were purged by Jesus by himself, eliminating baptism or anything else purported to save us. "For by grace are we saved".
Yes, backwards in the sense that you presented baptism into Christ as a work that merits something rather than God's freely given gift, grace or unmerited favor, to and for all men.

A parallel that most people recognize is the gospel in words alone. The gospel preached in words alone isn't a work that men do that somehow says or means that the person and work of the Christ is insuffient or that in itself it somehow merits something from God.

Instead, the preaching of the gospel in words alone, like baptism into Christ, is a means of grace. It is a way or means by which God delivers what He has done in the person and work of Christ, grace, to men. Men rightly receive this grace of God through faith alone or they reject it in unbelief.
What is your biblical support for your statement, "the promises of God in baptism"?
There are numerous examples, here are two: an obvious example is Acts 2:38 in which people are baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. A second is Jesus saying that the baptized believers, in this case publicans and harlots, enter the kingdom of God, Matthew 21:31. (It is enter rather than will enter the kingdom of God.)
You are basically making a statement of condemnation so support would be needed in order to see if you statement is true.
It isn't a statement of condemnation any more than a person saying, "I don't believe that the risen Lord's command to baptize and teach all peoples includes infants." Judgement belongs to the Lord.
Hebrews 1:2-3 <text snippedbecause of word count>"when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
The sacrifice of Christ is righly received alone by faith.
Look at the great commission verses. You have Jesus commanding the believers to go and make disciples and baptize them.
Disciple, or in some translations, "make disciples," is a verb. The participles baptize and teach tell us about that verb. In other words, in the context in which Jesus was speaking to disciple or make disciples is to baptize and teach. Btw, there is not a necessary order taught of baptize and teach or teach and baptize in this passage or any other in Scripture.
Why would God be doing what was clearly given man to do. A human immersing another human into water?
Baptism is into Christ rather than something apart from Christ.
Are you referring to baptism into Christ or baptism into water? There is a difference. What are the benefits of baptism into him, as you understand them?
That is a distinction which is not found in Scripture. Baptism with water is not baptism into water. See above for some benefits of baptism into Christ and 1 Peter 3:21 for another.
They all exclude baptism. They all state that Jesus sacrifice on the cross purchased us, justified us and purged our our sins. There is no need or possible thing that we can do to do what has been done by Jesus.

Matthew 26:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 5:9; Hebrews 1:2-3; Hebrews 9:13-14
It is only that interpretation of those passages which excludes baptism. If a person's witness doesn't accurately reflect what Scripture says in the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given then the error lies with the person. The Holy Spirit is the best teacher and the faithful learn from the Spirit rather than the Spirit learning from men.
But those opened minds wrote the New Testament. Are you suggesting that the New Testament can't be trusted??
No, I am suggesting that the writers of the NT wrote what they meant and meant what they wrote.
No, I am in agreement with the word of God as it is says that baptism is what Christians do, not what sinners do to get saved.
If a person calls what God has promised and delivered in and through the person of Christ a, "tradition of men," then that person is at odds with Scripture.
The "real item" affirms that he did the complete job and there is nothing else for us to do. We are saved by grace through faith. Once we are saved we live the Christian life and become the Christians that God created us in Christ Jesus to be. Salvation is free, but living the life has its consequences. The world will hate you.
What God has done in and through the person and work of Christ for all men can only be rightly received alone by faith. Faith in Christ is itself a gift from God, men do not merit it or somehow muster it up on their own.
 
A question. Which of the following acts was responsible for the good night’s sleep, the love of the father to the family down the road, the sacrifice of the son, the delivery of the bed and the letter that convinced the family that the offered gift was going to be good for them or the family accepting the gift and following the written instructions?
All of the Acts are responsible for a good night's sleep and none of the acts are responsible for a good night's sleep. One cannot occur without the other.

No single effort can be responsible if any of the participants are unwilling at any point.

I would like to submit that the father, son and uncle did an act of grace. The family had grace to receive the gift. It should be noted that the family received the gift before the work of reassembly of the bed had begun. What was responsible for the goodnight’s sleep was by grace alone.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest any man should boast.

What was responsible for the good night's sleep was FAITH. Grace was in the acts of providing and accepting the bed with instructions.

Faith is following the instructions, that the bed will work out as claimed, and faith is being able to close your eyes at night, trusting in the materials and workmanship based on the provided instructions. Your use of Ephesians 2:8 would underline this.

[Eph 2:8-9 KJV] 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

This would suggest that the Bed, the Instructions are what we put faith in. However, if you assemble the bed...*not of yourselves*...causes an error.

Maybe I am confused but your story seems to suggest the family down the road does ample work to assemble the Bed. Wouldn't this go against what I am assuming your point here is? That we are saved by grace through faith...but not works...yet you have the family working on the item that should "save" them (for the sake of the allegory).

The son cleans and repairs the bed. =Christ lives a sinless life.
The son gives the bed he fixed up to another family.= Christ dies for their sins.

Why would the Uncle(holy spirit) take the bed apart? Shouldn't the family be offered the bed in full, and maybe some info on better sleep hygiene and how to make the bed?

Also.....I think the Father was telling the family how to sleep for years and was giving them extensive instructions with the son and uncle. He saw how difficult it was for them, so he promised a Bed. The son delivered the bed and the uncle reminded them about the instructions on how to sleep and gave them some new sheets to apply.
 
All of the Acts are responsible for a good night's sleep and none of the acts are responsible for a good night's sleep. One cannot occur without the other.

No single effort can be responsible if any of the participants are unwilling at any point.
Agreed.
What was responsible for the good night's sleep was FAITH. Grace was in the acts of providing and accepting the bed with instructions.

Faith is following the instructions, that the bed will work out as claimed, and faith is being able to close your eyes at night, trusting in the materials and workmanship based on the provided instructions. Your use of Ephesians 2:8 would underline this.

[Eph 2:8-9 KJV] 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

This would suggest that the Bed, the Instructions are what we put faith in. However, if you assemble the bed...*not of yourselves*...causes an error.
Faith is not a magical input, it is required in every aspect of human life. If you are hungry and are sitting at a table with lots of food on it, you can have faith that if you eat it you will be good to go. You can maintain this faith until you die of starvation. With faith there has to be a responding action. If you don't actually go to the trouble of eating the food all the faith in the world will be of no practical use.

By what you are saying when we are told to repent, believe, confess or follow Christ, if we do it we are trying to save ourselves by works. None of these works that we are required to do will save you. These are done in order to be saved by the one that saves, but we can do nothing that will save us. We are saved by grace, not works.
Maybe I am confused but your story seems to suggest the family down the road does ample work to assemble the Bed. Wouldn't this go against what I am assuming your point here is? That we are saved by grace through faith...but not works...yet you have the family working on the item that should "save" them (for the sake of the allegory).
The gift was received and was in their possession. We can equate the gift as salvation. Ephesians 2:10 is a description of life after the initial salvation. It says that because of God's workmanship we are created in Christ to do good works (assemble the bed, the received gift) After you are saved you become obligated to live the Christian life to become the Christian that God has created you to be. We were not saved to sit around and watch the action, we are called to be the action.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The son cleans and repairs the bed. =Christ lives a sinless life.
The son gives the bed he fixed up to another family.= Christ dies for their sins.

Why would the Uncle(holy spirit) take the bed apart? Shouldn't the family be offered the bed in full, and maybe some info on better sleep hygiene and how to make the bed?
As usual stories like these have their problems. In this case it was my leaving out that the son had disassembled the bed to aid in the cleaning and repair. If you will look back you will find that when the uncle came into the story, the bed was already disassembled
Also.....I think the Father was telling the family how to sleep for years and was giving them extensive instructions with the son and uncle. He saw how difficult it was for them, so he promised a Bed. The son delivered the bed and the uncle reminded them about the instructions on how to sleep and gave them some new sheets to apply.
Don't forget the tools so they could assemble the bed. The tools were part of the gift.
 
Ok, but just for the record, the words grace and sacrament are on equal footing in that both are sourced from the Bible and both come to us from Latin.
They are on equal footing as far as being terms that are used in the English language. The term "sacrament" is NOT found in the Bible text. It is an add on to corrupt proper Bible doctrine. Grace is in the Bible, sacrament is not. Sacrament is not on an equal footing in the Bible.
How people use these terms will differ depending on emphasis and context, for example, grace as unmerited favor and also as gift. In the same way the term sacrament doesn't have a one size fits all use and it too depends on emphasis and context.
Sacrament id not in the Bible. It is the opinion of old men that were in total error. Most of the New Testament epistles were written to counter false doctrine. Sacrament came after the Bible New Testament was written.
God has promised and he delivers on those promises in baptism into Christ, for example, the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. God freely gave baptism on account of His promise and for His name's sake. Man doesn't earn or merit baptism nor the gifts given in baptism into Christ.
Those are terms that are what happen with salvation, not baptism.
Yes, backwards in the sense that you presented baptism into Christ as a work that merits something rather than God's freely given gift, grace or unmerited favor, to and for all men.
No. I present baptism as something that a saved by grace Christion does because the Christian is saved.
A parallel that most people recognize is the gospel in words alone. The gospel preached in words alone isn't a work that men do that somehow says or means that the person and work of the Christ is insuffient or that in itself it somehow merits something from God.

Instead, the preaching of the gospel in words alone, like baptism into Christ, is a means of grace. It is a way or means by which God delivers what He has done in the person and work of Christ, grace, to men. Men rightly receive this grace of God through faith alone or they reject it in unbelief.

There are numerous examples, here are two: an obvious example is Acts 2:38 in which people are baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. A second is Jesus saying that the baptized believers, in this case publicans and harlots, enter the kingdom of God, Matthew 21:31. (It is enter rather than will enter the kingdom of God.)
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The eunuch had to be a believer, saved, or Philip would not have baptised him. You don't baptize unbelievers to save them.
It isn't a statement of condemnation any more than a person saying, "I don't believe that the risen Lord's command to baptize and teach all peoples includes infants." Judgement belongs to the Lord.

The sacrifice of Christ is righly received alone by faith.

Disciple, or in some translations, "make disciples," is a verb. The participles baptize and teach tell us about that verb. In other words, in the context in which Jesus was speaking to disciple or make disciples is to baptize and teach. Btw, there is not a necessary order taught of baptize and teach or teach and baptize in this passage or any other in Scripture.
Baptize is a verb. All translations of Matthew 28:19 has make disciples or teach always before baptize. The need to be disciples or taught before being baptised.
Baptism is into Christ rather than something apart from Christ.

That is a distinction which is not found in Scripture. Baptism with water is not baptism into water. See above for some benefits of baptism into Christ and 1 Peter 3:21 for another.
Baptism is a verb, an action taking place. Immersion is the English that is the translation from the Greek. Baptize is an English word that does not relate to the Greek properly. In water baptism, water is the element used for water baptism. It is what you are immersing into or what you are baptising with. It is the same thing.
It is only that interpretation of those passages which excludes baptism. If a person's witness doesn't accurately reflect what Scripture says in the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given then the error lies with the person. The Holy Spirit is the best teacher and the faithful learn from the Spirit rather than the Spirit learning from men.
I find that you don't really know what the Bible teaches about baptism. see my next post.
No, I am suggesting that the writers of the NT wrote what they meant and meant what they wrote.

If a person calls what God has promised and delivered in and through the person of Christ a, "tradition of men," then that person is at odds with Scripture.

What God has done in and through the person and work of Christ for all men can only be rightly received alone by faith. Faith in Christ is itself a gift from God, men do not merit it or somehow muster it up on their own.
What you are telling me about baptism is tradition of men as it totally ignores Scripture.
 
Baptisma {bap'-tis-mah}- Baptism 1) Immersion, submersion 1a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed) (James Strong)

Baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}1) To dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) 2) To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) To overwhelm (James Strong)

The term must be used as the Greek intended it or we are not being true to the definition. Baptism simply stated is immersion into an element.

What is needed to carry out a baptism?

1. A candidate... One being baptized
2. An agent... One to do the baptizing
3. An element... In what the candidate is to be baptized.

To keep this simple; a baptism occurs when a candidate is immersed into an element by an agent.

The Bible speaks of several baptisms, but our focus will be only on the three baptisms that the Christian mostly hears about: baptism with water, baptism into Christ and baptism with the Holy Spirit. In the following descriptions of the three baptisms, please note that there are three agents of baptism, three elements of baptism, three purposes of each baptism and a single candidate.

The first baptism to be dealt with is water baptism. Water baptism is of this world, worldly and is but a shadow of the real baptisms that are spiritual in nature. This baptism is the only baptism that is commanded by Christ and is carried out by a human. This baptism is the only baptism that we can observe the element, agent and candidate with our physical sight. (A picture is worth a thousand words.) When we see this occurring then we can transpose the candidate, agent and element to the other baptisms and in effect consider the spiritual realm and observe baptism into Christ and baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Baptism with Water:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

(Note that the condition of being baptized in water is that you must be a believer (saved))

Candidate... One being baptized.... Eunuch (Believer).
Agent... One to do the baptizing.... Philip
Element... In what the candidate is to be baptized.... Water.

Baptism into One Body (Christ):

I Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Candidate... One being baptized.... We (Believers).
Agent... One to do the baptizing.... Holy Spirit
Element... In what the candidate is to be baptized.... One Body. (The body of Christ)

The Holy Spirit baptizes the believer into Christ, into his body at repentance and the new birth. (The indwelling of the Holy Spirit also occurs at this baptism)

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Baptism with The Holy Spirit:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire

Candidate... One being baptized.... You (Believers).
Agent... One to do the baptizing.... Jesus (he that cometh after me)
Element... In what the candidate is to be baptized.... Holy Ghost.

Act 1:4-5, 8. Acts 1:4 And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 8 But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and in Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The above descriptions of the three baptisms that the Christians commonly refer to, I have been told on more than one occasion, are unscriptural as there are three and the Bible says that there is only one baptism (See Ephesians 4:5). Never the less here are three different baptisms with three different agents and three different elements and three different reasons, books, chapters and verses. All I have to say about that is, it has been written, and it still stands; written.
 
Baptism with Water:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

(Note that the condition of being baptized in water is that you must be a believer (saved))
You must grasp that KJV tightly. 8:37 is not the original text. It is not included Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p45, and the Vulgate or the Majority of extra-biblical text related to Luke. Did you know the first Acts 8:37 is ever mentioned is by the Early Church Fathers? Irenaeus and one other who I can't recall bring it up. Both however subscribed to infant baptism, and baptism as a means of salvation. Acts 8:37 was originally a note in the margins of a translation. It's not actually believed to be written originally by St.Luke either.

Also because I often find knowing a little History helpful. ALL of the KJV translators held Infant baptism.

Regardless. Phillip would be correct even if he did say this. Faith is most certainly required in baptism. Denominations that hold to infant Baptism, or the salvific power of baptism Understand that faith a gift from God needs to be applied to baptism. AND REGARDLESS EVEN OF THAT. Pedobaptists as far as I have known and seen expect adults who come to Christ to make a profession of faith. Faith is a gift from God.

Questions for you.
He is being baptized for his belief in Christ which to that point he did not have. How does it dispute infant baptism? He's not an infant and he's not a member of a believing household, so he's baptized upon being received into the covenant community as a believer. How does this argue against infant baptism? Or baptism saving? How do we know he is truly saved? This verse says baptism does that..... Lets look into Acts a little further shall we... Ill use the KJV

[Act 8:34-36 KJV] 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Notice what happens in these verses. After getting help on some scripture, The Eunuch then asks Phillip who the prophet in that scripture was talking about. Phillip then Preached to him, Jesus. The Eunuch then asks once being near water....so he is aware that water is needed for Baptism. Oddly he is also aware of Baptism.

Nowhere in the scriptures in Acts does it show Phillip discussing Baptism with him. It does say that he preached unto him, Jesus. So whos Phillip? well, he is an Apostle. He was in town for the earlier part of Acts.

First Peter gives a sermon Preaching Jesus from Acts 2:14 to 2:37 even Saying all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

After this sermon that Phillip would have agreed with, and been aware of. This occurred...which Phillip would also be aware of, and agreed with.

[Act 2:37-41 KJV] 37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

When you look at Phillip and the Eunuch you see this exact same scenario. The Eunuch has Jesus preached to him, his heart his pricked by the word (some of the grace we have been discussing) and he received the gift of faith. He actions this faith by being baptized. He then receives the holy spirit and is forgiven of his sins (saved). Peter whos sermon would of mirrored what Phillip preached. Calling on the name of the Lord is Baptism. Being saved is calling on the name of the lord. The Eunuch Heard the word, asked what to do, was told about baptism was told enough to know he needed to have water. If Phillip did say You must believe, then that doesn't change the fact that believing his having faith, and faith is a gift from God, which you receive due to his grace, which is in his word. That same word that says to be Baptized to be saved.

Peter even makes sure that those who receive the Holy spirit are sure to be baptized in the water (see Cornelius) ..... Why? Well because peter also say things like this...

[1Pe 3:20-21 KJV] 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 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:

So it would seem Peter thinks water baptism does something, even receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in Tounges Peter still wants to use that Word and water to baptize you. Probably nothing there. L...O...L ;)
 
They are on equal footing as far as being terms that are used in the English language.
They are both in the English language from the Latin. They were both used in the Latin translation of Scripture. Whether they entered the English language primarily through the oral recitation of Scripture or through Wycliffe's translation or another early translation isn't something I've chased down.
The term "sacrament" is NOT found in the Bible text. It is an add on to corrupt proper Bible doctrine. Grace is in the Bible, sacrament is not. Sacrament is not on an equal footing in the Bible.
That is false when a person applies your reasoning consistently. For example, according to that line of reasoning the term grace is not found in Scripture because it is a Latin term. It is and has been a choice of Latin translators in the same way as sacrament is and has been a choice of Latin translators.
Sacrament id not in the Bible. It is the opinion of old men that were in total error.
That is demonstrably false. If you mean to say that some people use it in a way that you disagree with then I would pass over that claim without comment.
Most of the New Testament epistles were written to counter false doctrine. Sacrament came after the Bible New Testament was written.
So? All translations of the NT came after the Greek and Aramaic/Hebrew originals. But that does bring up an interesting question, was there an OT translation that predates the NT?
Those are terms that are what happen with salvation, not baptism.
That is an expression of the interpretive bias that says Scripture can't be trusted or doesn't say what it means when it says things like baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
No. I present baptism as something that a saved by grace Christion does because the Christian is saved.
Even in this most rewording above it remains as an active work of the passive object in baptism, the one being baptized is the passive object rather than the acting subject.
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The eunuch had to be a believer, saved, or Philip would not have baptised him.
That wasn't the question asked or answered. The eunuch who was hindered from the assembly of God by his condition asked what hinders him from baptism? Philip's reply indicates that the old rules no longer apply, that is, nothing hinders him since Christ died for all. That's why the eunuch said, "I believe Christ is the Son of God," rather than, "I believe baptism is a public profession of my faith," or, "I believe baptism is something only "saved" people do," etc.
You don't baptize unbelievers to save them.

Baptize is a verb. All translations of Matthew 28:19 has make disciples or teach always before baptize. The need to be disciples or taught before being baptised.
That is because "make disciples" is a translation of the Greek word for disciple, a transitive verb. The gerunds baptizing and teaching (It is not expressing a necessary order but baptizing does precede teaching.) are used to translate greek participles. Participles are verbal nouns. If you are reading baptize, a verb, into the passage you are misreading and consequently misunderstanding the passage.

The interpretive statement at the end of your comment is an expession of that misunderstanding.
Baptism is a verb, an action taking place.
Baptism is a noun, baptize is the verb.
Immersion is the English that is the translation from the Greek.
No, that is a possible intended meaning or use depending on context.
Baptize is an English word that does not relate to the Greek properly.
Baptize is an English word from the Greek. If you think it does not properly relate to the Greek then the problem is in your interpretation of the word.
In water baptism, water is the element used for water baptism.
People are baptized with water, "water baptism" is a non-scriptural term used by some to try and separate the Spirit from baptism with water..
It is what you are immersing into or what you are baptising with. It is the same thing.
No, it is not the same thing because of the redefining terms in your claim above which creates a straw man.
I find that you don't really know what the Bible teaches about baptism. see my next post.
I post what Scripture says about baptism without redefining terms or trying to place it into an alien context. What you are noticing is that I don't agree with the misunderstandings and misrepresentations regarding baptism which you've posted.
What you are telling me about baptism is tradition of men as it totally ignores Scripture.
Citing Scripture in the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given is not ignoring Scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
Baptisma {bap'-tis-mah}- Baptism 1) Immersion, submersion 1a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed) (James Strong)

Baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}1) To dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) 2) To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) To overwhelm (James Strong)

The term must be used as the Greek intended it or we are not being true to the definition. Baptism simply stated is immersion into an element.
Although Strong's is simplistic if you follow the details and if you read Scripture in context you will that it refers to an application of water.
What is needed to carry out a baptism?

1. A candidate... One being baptized
2. An agent... One to do the baptizing
3. An element... In what the candidate is to be baptized.
You left out the true number one, the grace of God. Also, re 3: with and in are not synonyms. Three is false.
To keep this simple; a baptism occurs when a candidate is immersed into an element by an agent.
That may be simple but it isn't the scriptural witness.
The Bible speaks of several baptisms, but our focus will be only on the three baptisms that the Christian mostly hears about: baptism with water, baptism into Christ and baptism with the Holy Spirit.
The one baptism. An easy way to get on the right track is to follow the chronological order presented in Scripture. It was after the resurrection that Peter said baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
In the following descriptions of the three baptisms, please note that there are three agents of baptism, three elements of baptism, three purposes of each baptism and a single candidate.
That is a false statement. Read Scripture in the context in which it was given.
The first baptism to be dealt with is water baptism.
"Water baptism," is an unscriptural term and idea.
Water baptism is of this world, worldly and is but a shadow of the real baptisms that are spiritual in nature.
The one baptism is from God, freely given and for the benefit of all men.
This baptism is the only baptism that is commanded by Christ and is carried out by a human.
The one baptism is from God, there is no God apart from Jesus. (If you are a trinitarian you will understand that statement.)

Perhaps we can agree with what Scripture says, namely, the one baptism from God and performed by ordinary men, that one baptism is with water and from which Scripture no where categorically excludes the Holy Spirit from it.

That is the distinction John makes when he says I baptize with water but there is one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Previously, John plainly said He is not the Christ. His baptism, as an ordinary man who is not the Christ, is with water unlike that of Christ from whom the Spirit proceeds directly.
This baptism is the only baptism that we can observe the element, agent and candidate with our physical sight. (A picture is worth a thousand words.) When we see this occurring then we can transpose the candidate, agent and element to the other baptisms and in effect consider the spiritual realm and observe baptism into Christ and baptism with the Holy Spirit.
That is an example of eisegesis.
Baptism with Water:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

(Note that the condition of being baptized in water is that you must be a believer (saved))
That is a misreading adressed in a previous post.
Candidate... One being baptized.... Eunuch (Believer).
Agent... One to do the baptizing.... Philip
Element... In what the candidate is to be baptized.... Water.
More fruit from the bad tree.
Baptism into One Body (Christ):

I Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Sure, the body of Christ is one.
Candidate... One being baptized.... We (Believers).
Agent... One to do the baptizing.... Holy Spirit
Element... In what the candidate is to be baptized.... One Body. (The body of Christ)

The Holy Spirit baptizes the believer into Christ, into his body at repentance and the new birth. (The indwelling of the Holy Spirit also occurs at this baptism)
This occurs at the one baptism just as Peter said, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, see Acts 2:38.
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Those passages are informing us of the one baptism.
Baptism with The Holy Spirit:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire
A true summary statement as far as it goes, for example, it doesn't include that John's baptism was also for the forgiveness of sins, etc. It also doesn't exclude the Spirit from John's baptism as the Spirit necessarily proceeds from the Father and the Son. John's statement is a clear proclamation of the deity of Christ.
Candidate... One being baptized.... You (Believers).
Agent... One to do the baptizing.... Jesus (he that cometh after me)
Element... In what the candidate is to be baptized.... Holy Ghost.
More eisegesis, with and in are not synonyms.
Act 1:4-5, 8. Acts 1:4 And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 8 But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and in Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
You left out an important piece of the context, verse four, "And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to await for the promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me;" -EMTV

The risen Lord was going to send the Holy Spirit and the Spirit was going to come upon those disciples in a particular manner according to a particular promise for a particular purpose.
The above descriptions of the three baptisms that the Christians commonly refer to, I have been told on more than one occasion, are unscriptural as there are three and the Bible says that there is only one baptism (See Ephesians 4:5). Never the less here are three different baptisms with three different agents and three different elements and three different reasons, books, chapters and verses. All I have to say about that is, it has been written, and it still stands; written.
Your descriptions are according to your interpretations rather than the immediate context of those passages. If the Lord doesn't come soon according to our reckoning of time we will be long gone but Scripture will still say baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
 
You must grasp that KJV tightly. 8:37 is not the original text. It is not included Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p45, and the Vulgate or the Majority of extra-biblical text related to Luke. Did you know the first Acts 8:37 is ever mentioned is by the Early Church Fathers? Irenaeus and one other who I can't recall bring it up. Both however subscribed to infant baptism, and baptism as a means of salvation. Acts 8:37 was originally a note in the margins of a translation. It's not actually believed to be written originally by St.Luke either.
I will admit that I prefer the KJV but I am not one of those that think all the writers of the Bible spoke King James English. As for Acts 8:37, you say that it is not in the original text. You have never seen the original text. I have found it in 20+ English translations and most of the ones that don't have it in the translation's text, have a note directing your attention to it.

As for the early church fathers, their writings amount to at best, opinion, nothing more. They were not inspired to write the scriptures. What the Bible text says is what we measure what is truth when looking at extra-biblical texts.

Infant baptism and baptism saves is corrupt teaching to distract from the truth that we are saved by grace.
Also because I often find knowing a little History helpful. ALL of the KJV translators held Infant baptism.
Good for them. I will stick with saved by grace. The fact that you have stated, is the reason that the Greek "baptisma" was not translated but anglicized to baptized, baptize. A proper translation is immersion. (James Strong). More corruption of the scriptures.
Regardless. Phillip would be correct even if he did say this. Faith is most certainly required in baptism. Denominations that hold to infant Baptism, or the salvific power of baptism Understand that faith a gift from God needs to be applied to baptism. AND REGARDLESS EVEN OF THAT. Pedobaptists as far as I have known and seen expect adults who come to Christ to make a profession of faith. Faith is a gift from God.
Yes, faith is a gift from God but we are responsible as to where we place our faith. Are we to place our faith in God or in fairy tales?

Of course they are expected to make their own profession of faith because baptism does not save them. It has to be their own decision.

Questions for you.
He is being baptized for his belief in Christ which to that point he did not have. How does it dispute infant baptism? He's not an infant and he's not a member of a believing household, so he's baptized upon being received into the covenant community as a believer. How does this argue against infant baptism? Or baptism saving? How do we know he is truly saved? This verse says baptism does that..... Lets look into Acts a little further shall we... Ill use the KJV
It is obvious that he had a belief in Christ or he wouldn't want to get baptized. Baptism does not save so infant baptism is totally useless.

Now you are saying, "he's baptized upon being received into the covenant community as a believer". Is he a believer before he is baptized or not. You can't have it both ways. Infants can't chose for themselves as they lack the ability to understand what is being done, supposedly, for them.

We know that he is saved because Philip baptized him. Do you not want to remember Acts 8:37? Of course not as the you might have to have a thought of your own instead of blindly following the traditions of men. This verse doesn't say baptism saves because it is requiring belief before baptism.
[Act 8:34-36 KJV] 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Notice what happens in these verses. After getting help on some scripture, The Eunuch then asks Phillip who the prophet in that scripture was talking about. Phillip then Preached to him, Jesus. The Eunuch then asks once being near water....so he is aware that water is needed for Baptism. Oddly he is also aware of Baptism.
Not so odd. Did Jesus not say that we believers were to make disciples and baptize them? Nowhere is it indicated that every word of the conversation was stated and in light of Jesus' command to baptise the disciples there is nothing odd except for you thinking that is odd.
Nowhere in the scriptures in Acts does it show Phillip discussing Baptism with him. It does say that he preached unto him, Jesus. So whos Phillip? well, he is an Apostle. He was in town for the earlier part of Acts.
Actually this was not Philip the apostle, but Philip the deacon. You should really read your Bible more carefully.
First Peter gives a sermon Preaching Jesus from Acts 2:14 to 2:37 even Saying all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

After this sermon that Phillip would have agreed with, and been aware of. This occurred...which Phillip would also be aware of, and agreed with.

[Act 2:37-41 KJV] 37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.
Do you know what repent means? I don't think you do, but if you do, you are totally ignoring it. Repent is to turn from sin and turn to God. Having repented you are saved. In English for remission of your sins can be because of the remission of sins. You don't get baptized to have your sins remitted, you get baptized because your sins have been remitted. They gladly received the word and then they were baptized.
When you look at Phillip and the Eunuch you see this exact same scenario. The Eunuch has Jesus preached to him, his heart his pricked by the word (some of the grace we have been discussing) and he received the gift of faith. He actions this faith by being baptized. He then receives the holy spirit and is forgiven of his sins (saved). Peter whos sermon would of mirrored what Phillip preached. Calling on the name of the Lord is Baptism. Being saved is calling on the name of the lord. The Eunuch Heard the word, asked what to do, was told about baptism was told enough to know he needed to have water. If Phillip did say You must believe, then that doesn't change the fact that believing his having faith, and faith is a gift from God, which you receive due to his grace, which is in his word. That same word that says to be Baptized to be saved.
The Bible flatly denies your idea.
Peter even makes sure that those who receive the Holy spirit are sure to be baptized in the water (see Cornelius) ..... Why? Well because peter also say things like this...

[1Pe 3:20-21 KJV] 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 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:
You are in error about this as well. The water killed all that were in the water. The only ones that were saved were in the ark This should tell you that so far you are not understanding the scripture at this point. What is the "like figure" that Peter is referring to. Water baptism is the like figure, but the like figure to what? Water baptism shows the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Our salvation is in Jesus and noting else and it is received by grace through faith in Jesus.
So it would seem Peter thinks water baptism does something, even receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in Tounges Peter still wants to use that Word and water to baptize you. Probably nothing there. L...O...L ;)
Like I said, read your Bible.
 
None of those were anything but sour responses. I get it. YOU are the one you figured it out, not the hundreds of thousands of others who believe very much the opposite of you, and rightly I'll add.
Sorry I am not converting to Montanism or Ana Baptism, or whatever over cooked denomination you think isn't one of those two....To please your extremely poor understanding of biblical passages as pointed out by BJ.

Tells me to read my Bible because he can't understand clear passages, but uses other passages not related to baptism to refute clear God breathed scripture. Pray for yourself please.
 
I will admit that I prefer the KJV but I am not one of those that think all the writers of the Bible spoke King James English. As for Acts 8:37, you say that it is not in the original text. You have never seen the original text. I have found it in 20+ English translations and most of the ones that don't have it in the translation's text, have a note directing your attention to it.

As for the early church fathers, their writings amount to at best, opinion, nothing more. They were not inspired to write the scriptures. What the Bible text says is what we measure what is truth when looking at extra-biblical texts.
If you don't accept the extra-biblical witness of some writers then the Greek evidence that 8:37 belongs in Scripture is from the sixth century.
Infant baptism and baptism saves is corrupt teaching to distract from the truth that we are saved by grace.
This objection is demosntrably illogical and false. The verb in Mt 28:19 translated as, "disciple," or, "make disciples," is transitive, that is, it has an object. The object is, "all peoples." According to Scripture, history, and common sense infants are necessarily a part of all peoples. Further, to, "disciple," or, "make disciples," in the context of that passage is by baptizing and teaching, the participles that inform us of the transitive verb, "disciple."

Baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ is the Scriptural witness. Read Matthew 28:19 again and you will see that the passive object of the transitive verb, "disciple," or, "make disciples," is, "all peoples." That means baptism and teaching is something done to people rather than the work of the people who receive baptism and the teaching.

Since neither of those are works of the people who receive them, and they can only be rightly received alone through faith, there is no conflict whatsoever between both of those and being saved by grace.
 
If you don't accept the extra-biblical witness of some writers then the Greek evidence that 8:37 belongs in Scripture is from the sixth century.

This objection is demosntrably illogical and false. The verb in Mt 28:19 translated as, "disciple," or, "make disciples," is transitive, that is, it has an object. The object is, "all peoples." According to Scripture, history, and common sense infants are necessarily a part of all peoples. Further, to, "disciple," or, "make disciples," in the context of that passage is by baptizing and teaching, the participles that inform us of the transitive verb, "disciple."

Baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ is the Scriptural witness. Read Matthew 28:19 again and you will see that the passive object of the transitive verb, "disciple," or, "make disciples," is, "all peoples." That means baptism and teaching is something done to people rather than the work of the people who receive baptism and the teaching.

Since neither of those are works of the people who receive them, and they can only be rightly received alone through faith, there is no conflict whatsoever between both of those and being saved by grace.
8:37Isn't required to prove you are in error. All that is needed is Ephesians 2:8 and 9. We are saved by grace through faith. it is a gift from God. NOT of works.
 
Back
Top