Do You Find the Practice of Baptism for the Dead Offensive?

[the_last_gunslinger]

Not so much our belief in it, or whether it's scriptural or necesary, but if you found out that vicarious work had been done for one of your ancestors or friends, is that upsetting, or do you not care because you believe it's a false doctrine anyways?

There's been a lot made of this in recent years, namely work being done for holocaust victims, and the Jewish community has been furious over this practice. Likewise, the Catholic Church has instructed local parishes to not hand over such information regarding baptisms and so forth to the LDS Church.

What are you thoughts on this?

[francesepp]

Not so much our belief in it, or whether it's scriptural or necesary, but if you found out that vicarious work had been done for one of your ancestors or friends, is that upsetting, or do you not care because you believe it's a false doctrine anyways?

There's been a lot made of this in recent years, namely work being done for holocaust victims, and the Jewish community has been furious over this practice. Likewise, the Catholic Church has instructed local parishes to not hand over such information regarding baptisms and so forth to the LDS Church.

What are you thoughts on this?

This used to really bother me.  My ex-sister in law wanted her LDS church to do this for my husband's mom who was a devout Catholic when she was alive in this world.  My husband and I were incensed by it.

I've since softened my view a lot because I believe (at least I hope) that LDS churches are doing this in love.  It is my perception that they believe they are helping souls that have gone on to get to the Kingdom of God.  This isn't part of my belief system, so I think the practice may possibly be a waste of time, but if it makes people feel better, I don't see any harm in it.

I do have a question.  As I understand it, the LDS church does this because they believe you must be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God.  Does any baptism count or does it have to be an LDS baptism?  In other words, why would they be doing this ritual for an already baptized Catholic?

Fran   

[the_last_gunslinger]

This used to really bother me.  My ex-sister in law wanted her LDS church to do this for my husband's mom who was a devout Catholic when she was alive in this world.  My husband and I were incensed by it.

I've since softened my view a lot because I believe (at least I hope) that LDS churches are doing this in love.  It is my perception that they believe they are helping souls that have gone on to get to the Kingdom of God.  This isn't part of my belief system, so I think the practice may possibly be a waste of time, but if it makes people feel better, I don't see any harm in it.

You are entirely correct in your assertion that this practice is done out of love of the individual. Members of the church take time out of their day to perform vicarious ordinances for those who have died that did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this lifetime.

I think a lot of the ire comes from a misunderstanding of what the practice entails. Some erroneously believe that the church bolsters its membership count by adding those for whom vicarious work has been performed, and this is not true. Still others believe that we are trying to force them to become Mormon in the hereafter, even though our doctrine states that they are still able to exercise their agency in the Spirit World.

I do have a question.  As I understand it, the LDS church does this because they believe you must be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God.  Does any baptism count or does it have to be an LDS baptism?  In other words, why would they be doing this ritual for an already baptized Catholic?

The church definitely teaches that baptism is essential; it is one of the first principles of the gospel, the other three being faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance and Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I don't know what your conception is of the LDS church, but one of the fundamental beliefs, the one thing that we believe makes us God's church, is the restoration of Priesthood authority. The priesthood is literally God's power and authority delegated to mortal men to act on his behalf. By this authority, the ordinances performed in the church, (Sacrament/Communion, baptism, laying on of hands, ordination, blessings of health/comfort and so forth) become binding and are recognized by God as being authentic. Without the Priesthood, these ordinances have no meaning. So in essence, only LDS baptisms count as we believe that we are the only church that possesses the authority needed to perform such an ordinance.

I hope this was clear enough. If you seek clarification on anything, I would be happy to do so.

[chosenone]

Not offensive, just pointless.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Not offensive, just pointless.

Fair enough. I'm not asking anyone to accept the validity of the practice. If you don't believe in the doctrine, it'll obviously seem pointless to you.

Thanks for the reply.

[LaSpino3]

Answer to your question, "Do you find the practice of baptism for the dead offensive?"

Phil replies, "Sure its an offense to God. It one of those doctrines that have been added in by men. I don't care about any man's position, or authority they may claim to possess.  I spoke of Rev.22:18-19, about adding or taking away the teaching of the Bible. This is one of them. In this life we are on probation. This is it, there will be no other opportunities

Phil.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Phil replies, "Sure its an offense to God. It one of those doctrines that have been added in by men. I don't care about any man's position, or authority they may claim to possess.  I spoke of Rev.22:18-19, about adding or taking away the teaching of the Bible. This is one of them. In this life we are on probation. This is it, there will be no other opportunities

I believe I responded to your inquiries regarding that passage in Revelation. That was not intended to be applied to the whole Bible; it is in reference only to the Book of Revelation. Keep in mind, the Bible had not yet been compiled into one book when John wrote Revelation, how could it be in reference to the entire tome? Also, Deuteronomy has the exact same warning. Should we then disregard everything that came after since it is "adding" to the words of that book?

I am in agreement with you that we are on probation, but I think one of the fundamental misunderstandings about this practice is that it allows those who rejected the gospel in this life to be saved in the next. That is simply not the case. The practice is meant for those who would have accepted the gospel had they known about, but either lived during the Apostasy when the church had not yet been found, or whether they lived in a country where they could not learn about it. Look at Iran, for example. Our church is not allowed in there; there is no Priesthood authority to be found in that country. But God has commanded us that we must be baptized in order to be saved. Since he is a merciful God, he instituted the practice of vicarious baptism to give those who would have accepted the gospel to do so in the next life. This way, both justice and mercy are being satisfied: justice because man still must exercise free agency and accept the work done for him, and mercy because God has provided a way by which all men may be saved if they so desire it.

I find it also important to point out that baptism for the dead was practiced  by the early Christians and it wasn't banned until four-hundred years after the death of Christ by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage.

[LaSpino3]

Gunslinger wrote, "That was not intended to be applied to the whole Bible; it is in reference only to the Book of Revelation."

Phil replies, "Cheap shot. Every end time prophesy in the Bible, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Psalms, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, etc. answers to, and ends with the book of Revelation. So to add to this book of Revelation, is to add to all the  other books.

Revelation is that bottom line, its the adding together of all the bits and pieces of information that had been given to each and every prophet, beginning with, Moses, who wrote Genesis, and Job the oldest of the books.

Concerning 1 Cor.15:30, I have never done a research on it, but will. But one thing I have learned not to do, is make a doctrine out of one obscure verse, especially when it butts heads with other teachings. Every time this is done, a new religion is born.

After glancing at the verse, I would say the mis-understanding come from taking it in the positive, but Paul was most likely reprimanding them for doing it.  Example. Speaking in some unknown, not of this world language that the Corinthians were practicing.  The church at Corinth had become corrupted, Paul's letters were to bring them back in line with the gospel they practiced at first.

Phil LaSpino

[the_last_gunslinger]

Gunslinger wrote, "That was not intended to be applied to the whole Bible; it is in reference only to the Book of Revelation."

Phil replies, "Cheap shot. Every end time prophesy in the Bible, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Psalms, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, etc. answers to, and ends with the book of Revelation. So to add to this book of Revelation, is to add to all the  other books.

The problem with making this distinction is that the Bible never does. That quote is found in the Book of Revelation, written independently of the other books. Until the fourth century, no one even knew what books would be included in the Bible. Also note that people in the Bible reference other books not found in canon. So Christ was speaking falsehoods when he quoted from other scripture, or the majority of Christendom is mistaken in believing that the Holy Bible is all there is. I think the latter is more likely.

Revelation is that bottom line, its the adding together of all the bits and pieces of information that had been given to each and every prophet, beginning with, Moses, who wrote Genesis, and Job the oldest of the books.

This is correct. But I believe this references the Book of Mormon also. We believe it to be written by the Spirit of Revelation as well. Let me ask you this, does it make sense to establish his church only in Jerusalem, give only them a holy book and no one else? Or is it more likely that God knows and loves all his creation and would thus speak to those in other parts of the world. If the Bible is all there is, that would imply that God forsook everyone but those living in and around Jerusalem.

Concerning 1 Cor.15:30, I have never done a research on it, but will. But one thing I have learned not to do, is make a doctrine out of one obscure verse, especially when it butts heads with other teachings. Every time this is done, a new religion is born.

After glancing at the verse, I would say the mis-understanding come from taking it in the positive, but Paul was most likely reprimanding them for doing it.  Example. Speaking in some unknown, not of this world language that the Corinthians were practicing.  The church at Corinth had become corrupted, Paul's letters were to bring them back in line with the gospel they practiced at first.

This interpretation makes no sense. Are you saying that the Apostle Paul used a false practice to illustrate a true principle? The verse is as follows:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

He seems to be preaching on the validity of the dead rising. That is a truth that each of us can accept. Here, it seems as though the corinthians were doubting this, so he pointed out the practice of baptism for the dead, saying, essentially, that if there is no resurrection, why do it? But since there is a resurrection, the practice has meaning. Again, the alternative is that Paul is using a false practice to illustrate a true principle. That doesn't seem likely.

[the_last_gunslinger]

The only baptism that is important is, The Spiritual baptism into the body of Christ.
1 Cor 12: 13... This is the rebirth and has nothing to do with water baptism.

Jesus's disciples were baptised in water, But they weren't saved.
The Apostle Paul was saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But he wasn't baptised in water.
The Gentiles in Acts 10, were saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and sopkin tongues, But they weren't baptised in water.

Paul told the Corinthian Church it was through his Ministry that they were born again, But he also said He didn't baptised them, So Paul, the disciple and the gentiles knew water baptism doesn't save.

There is no teaching on baptising for the dead in the Bible, Paul wasn't making a doctrine out of it, He was just telling a group of people who were baptising for the dead but didn't believe in the resurrection, So Paul said to them, If you don't believe the resurrectio, Why do you baptise for the dead.
As I said, Paul wasn't making a doctrine out of it.

Actually, the New Testament is pretty explicit that water baptism is essential. I'm amazed that someone would think different. We are told that unless a man be born of WATER and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. We are told also that he who believes and is BAPTIZED shall be saved. Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Likewise his disciples were. If it was a useless practice, why such a heavy emphasis on it?

I also don't know how you get that Acts 10 forbids baptism. It looks like it says the opposite. ACTS 10:47-48 read:


Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

This followed an episode when the Holy Ghost fell upon those listening to Peter. Because of that divine witness they gained a testimony of what was said. The above quotes are from Peter, who essentially asks if anyone forbid water (or baptism) when they have received the Holy Ghost? It was a rhetorical, proven by the next line when he commands them to be baptized. If all that was needed was a testimony of the Holy Ghost to be saved, I don't understand why Peter would then command them to be baptized.

And just to make sure here, does the Bible actually say that Paul wasn't baptized?

[the_last_gunslinger]

For the Biblical truth.. PLEASE READ My reply #9 AGAIN.

Neither the Bible or the original Greek text says water baptism is essential for salvation.

PLEASE NOTE,  Jn 3: 5 doesn't say "Unless one is baptised in water" DOES IT??.
False religions made that lie up.

I've stated before, no the word "Baptism" is not found in that passage. But it is clearly what is being referred to. The whole ritual of baptism is a symbolic rebirth, being placed beneath the surface of the water, and rising up out of it a new creature in Christ. We clearly have differing interpretations of born of water, trouble is, you still will not tell me what it actually means. You just keep repeating over and over that it doesn't say "baptism," and that it means something else. Yet you continually fail to tell me the alternate interpretation. Again, how are we to understand this passage?

If you read Acts 10: 44--46, You will see that they were saved, Baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues,  But they weren't baptised in water, Which proves water baptism isn't essential for salvation.
Then, And only after they were saved, They were baptised in water.
THE BIBLE RESTS ITS'S CASE..

No, it doesn't say this at all. All these verses says is that the Holy Ghost descended upon them and that they believed Peter's words and spoke in tongues. It doesn't say they were saved, nor does it say water baptism isn't required. The Bible does indeed rest its case, and that it is 100 percent essential. You fail to give any credible refutation of Christ's words when he said that "He who believes and is BAPTIZED shall be saved. Or in the verses you quoted when Peter COMMANDED them to be baptized. Does it make sense to command someone to do something that is not important?

Water baptism was important in those days because it was an outward sign [witness, testimony] of an ALREADY inward experience.
It was one identifying with Jesus, That is the onle reason why it was important.
It has nothing to do with salvation.

Tell me where in the Bible it says that baptism was only an outward expression of an inward sign. I don't recall ever reading something to that effect.

I've already illustrated that it is essential for salvation, Christ himself proclaimed this. His apostles commanded other followers to do it. Don't you find it a bit strange that all of Christ's followers, his disciples, apostles, Christ himself was baptized? If it is not important, it is peculiar that such heavy emphasis is placed on it.

[the_last_gunslinger]

[1]Who said water baptism is clear in Jn 3: 5??. Only false religious people.

[2] Water in Jn 3: 5 is,  isn't water baptism.
It is the cleansing of the word.
Jn 15: 3.  Eph 5: 26. Jame 1: 18. 1 Pet 1: 22--23.
And the cleansin Holy Ghost.
Titus 3: 5.

It's clear to those who understand the passage, yes. And it is unequivocally referring to water baptism. It would be a pretty confusing metaphor to use if it referred to a symbolic washing in the Word since water baptism was a widely held practice. Besides which, there is not an iota of scriptural evidence to support your assertion. You just say that it is metaphorical, but cannot prove it.

[3]I take it you are joking about Acts 10: 44--46??
How can you say they weren't saved???...I thought you said you believe the Bible???.
They must have been saves to be baptised in the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues.
But they weren't baptised in water at that time, Proving baptism isn't essential.

Well, I can say that because those scriptures don't claim they are saved. They very well could have been. But those verses don't say that. It only says that the Holy Ghost came upon them, that they believed Peter's words by the Spirit's testimony and that they spoke in tongues. That's it. Not once does it make mention of their salvation.

[4]The Greek emphesis for, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved", Is on the "Believing".. Not water baptism.

Please forgive my lack of erudition on the Greek language as I haven't studied it. But I'm curious to know what you mean when you say that the "emphasis" is on believing. Maybe if I know exactly what you mean by this, I can comment on it. As far as I can tell, though, this still doesn't change anything, even if you are correct. Sure the emphasis may be on believing, but that still doesn't change what the verse says, the "and is baptized shall be saved" bit. You still cannot disprove this.

PLEASE NOTE what Jesus DOESN'T SAY,
"He that isn't baptised shall be damned"..He didn't say that DID HE??
He said,
"He that believeth not, shall be damned"...DIDN'T HE??.
So Jesus, The Bible and the original Grek text all agree that water baptism isn't essential for salvation.

I'm assuming Christ figured that we can think for ourselves. If he says that he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, I take that at face value. You seem to want to reject Christ's words and infer that he meant something completely contrary to what the Bible says. If baptism isn't needed, why did he say that the believers and the baptized shall be saved? Why not just say those who believe and leave it at that?

[5]Water baptism was important in Bible times, Because it was the peoples identification to who they were baptised into, The baptism into Christ was an outward sign of an ALREADY inward experience.

You can't have it both ways. If baptism is not needed for salvation, then it is useless and it makes no sense for his disciples to be baptized. You are claiming that despite Peter commanding those to be baptized, despite Christ saying the baptized shall be saved, despite the fact that Christ was baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" that they really didn't mean any of this, and that it is merely an act of loyalty towards Christ without any efficacy whatsoever. This, unfortunately is not what the scriptures say.

If you were saved, You would know water baptism doesn't save.

I never said baptism isn't important, I have been baptised in water, Jesus told us to make disciples, Then baptise them Matt 28: 19.
   

Well, I hardly doubt that you are the ultimate authority on my salvation. I do know what the Bible says, though, and the doctrine you are spouting is diametrically opposed to what Christ and his apostles taught.

And the very fact that Christ commanded people to be baptized pretty much attests to its importance. And it's only important if it is needed for salvation. To claim otherwise is wholly illogical. Baptism is completely useless if it's not needed for salvation.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Your last post isn't showing up for some reason, but I've been able to copy your last respone which was:

I am giving you Biblical facts and the original Greek meanings.
You are giving me your own WRONG opinions.

If  you were truelly saved, You would have know it before you were baptised in water, Therefore You would know that water baptism doesn't save.
If you knew you weren't saved before you were baptised in water, You had no rights to be baptised.

Now for your first point, I would really disagree with you here. You've done very little except explain erroneous ways of interpreting scripture. I have given adequate rebuttals to all of your "facts" and you have only claimed that the Greek does not support my view. And as I've already stated before, even if you are correct about the emphasis in the Greek, you have failed time and again to account for the rest of the passage. I'm actually in agreement that the emphasis should always be on believing, but baptism is also important.

Water baptism is required. I know this, Christ knew this, his apostles knew this. Just look through the Bible. Luke 7:30 tells us that the "the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John. They rejected the counsel of God. Sounds pretty important to me. Or look at Acts 10:48. Peter COMMANDS disciples to be baptized. Why demand something that is not essential? Or Christ's final admonition to the remaining eleven apostles to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. If it's not essential, why did he command them to baptize all nations? 1st Peter 3:21 says The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us. Baptism "saves us" it says.

Take a look at ACTS 19: 2-6, which says:

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

In this account, Paul comes across some disciples that had not been baptized in the proper way, claiming that they were baptized unto John's baptism. Paul saw that this was wrong, so he re-baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ, then laid his hands upon them and gave them the Holy Ghost. If baptism isn't required, why did Paul put so much emphasis on doing it the right way?

The biblical evidence for baptism is so palpable, so obvious that I am amazed you would even consider otherwise.

[the_last_gunslinger]

[1]PLEASE NOTE, There was not water mentioned in any of those scriptures that I gave.
So how can you fit water baptism into them???

.

Born of water...remember? You have attached a bizarre, nonsensical interpretation to it, but it is clearly referencing water baptism.

[2]Paul and the Gentiles must have been saved  to have the baptism in the Holy Ghost.
I will agree with the Bible....not you, As you have proved how you twist what the Bible says.

Problem is, you don't agree with the Bible. Where does it say they were saved prior to getting baptized? I don't recall a single instance. You would agree that before getting saved one needs to repent,  correct? Why then was baptism called the baptism of repentance?

[3]Jesus would have said in Mk 16: 16,
"He that believes, will be saved, Then they can be baptised in water as an outward sign of an ALREADY inward experience".

If Christ had said this, you'd be correct and I would concede the point. But he didn't so I don't even know why you posted it. Christ clearly states He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved. How can you so easily write off the words of the Savior?

If you were saved, You would know water baotism doesn't save, As you know you would have been saved before you were baptised in water, And if you don't know you were saved, You had no right to be baptised.

Where does it say one needs to be saved before getting baptized? I don't recall reading anything of the sort? As far as I can tell, people were baptized after they believed. So a belief in Jesus Christ is all that is needed, especially since the passage from 1st Peter actually says baptism saves us.

Tell me how you got saved.

1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
2. Repentance
3. Baptism
4. Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost

These are the basic four tenets of the gospel. Other things are required as well, enduring to the end and such, essentially obeying God's commands.

[the_last_gunslinger]

[1]PLEASE NOTE, Born of the water, Doesn't say, "Baptised in water"..DOES IT??.
False religions have made that lie up.
If you were saved, You would know water baptism doesn't save.

That's the only possible meaning. Water baptism had already been established by John the Baptist and others. People knew what it entailed. People in that era would have known what born of water meant. And still, you can't refute this. Your only argument is that "it doesn't mean what you says it means." And you give no support for this position.

][2]You don't agree with the Bible, Paul and the Gentiles were saved, They couldn't have had the Holy Ghost unless they were saved. Rom 8: 9. Acts 2: 38.

Those quotes don't mean what you say they mean. In fact, Acts 2:38 supports my position. Peter tells them to repent and be Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. See, repentance comes first, then baptism for the remission of sins, then afterwards, you receive the Holy Ghost. This is so counter to your argument, I don't know why you brought it up.

[3]There is no, "Baptism of repentance", That was John's baptism and his baptism was only prepareing the way for Jesus.

Did you not read the scripture you posted when Peter said to be baptized for the remission of sins? What exactly does remission of sins mean, then?

Other scriptures teach this also: Mark 1:4 says: John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Or Luke 3:3 which says, And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Or Acts 19:4, Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

The Bible routinely references the baptism of repentance as these verses illustrate.

[4]The original Greek emphesis is on "Believing" in Mk 16: 16, As I havs told you
So Jesus would have said, "He that believe is saved" Then they can be baptised.
Paul was saved  three days before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost, And that was before He was baptised in water,  The gentiles were saved before they were baptised, Jesus tol;d His disciple to make disciples of people, Then baptise them, Matt 28: 19, [Original Greek]. Your arguement is with God..Not me.

EMPHASIS, though. Yes, I agree. The emphasis is always on believing. Baptism without belief is useless. But emphasizing one point does not all of a sudden nullify the rest of the scripture.

Show me also where it says Paul was saved prior to baptism. I read his conversion story and see that nowhere.

Look at all the scriptures that mention salvation, And see how many don't  mention water baptism.
Lk 24: 47...No mention of baptism.
Jn 1: 12--13..No mention of baptism.
Jn 3: 16-17..No mention of baptism.
Jn 5: 40..No mention of baptism.
Acts 16: 31..No mention of baptism.
Just to mention a few.

So what if they don't all mention baptism. That doesn't change the fact that other scriptures do. There are many parts to salvation, and the above verses deal with specific aspects. But baptism is clearly a requisite for salvation and repentance as I have shown numerous times.

[5]Your way of salvation isn't scriptural..
I KNEW YOU WEREN'T SAVED.. If you was, You would know that water batism doesn't save, And you woud know you were saved before you received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

On the contrary, my way is very scriptural, very 'by the book' if you will. We are told that we need to have faith in Jesus Christ. We do. We are told to be baptized for the remission of sins. We are. We are told to receive the Holy Ghost. We do. These are all scriptural. To say otherwise is showing a disturbing disregard for Christ's words.

So you know I'm saved? You can peer into my soul and know what kind of judgment is going to befall me? I'd say that's a pretty arrogant comment.

[the_last_gunslinger]

[1]NO..NO.. Baptism isn't the only meaning of, "Born of water", As I have already proved.
So let me ask you again,
Did Jesus says in Jn 3: 5, You must be baptised in water???.NO..NO... He didn't, False religions made that lie up.

So now you're calling God's way false...Hmmm.

[2]The Greek meaning for Acts 2: 38 is this.

"Repent", is the Verb and "Ye", is the subject, They are both in the second person and plural in number.

Each one of you and be baptised,
"You", is the subject and "baptised" is the verb, They are both in the third person and singular in numbers

And ye shal reveive the Holy Ghost.
"ye", is the subject and "Reveive the Holy Ghost", is the verb, They are both in the second person and plural in number.
Thaey agree with.."Repent Ye", But not with, Be baptised.

The Greek language says, The verb and the subject must agree in person and in number.
But baptised doesn't agree in person or number with either,
Repent ye, Or ye shall receive the Holy Ghost.

So the way the people would have heard and understood Peter was,
"Repent for the remision of sins and ye shall reciece the Holy Ghost".

Then and Then only could they be baptised in water.

Again, I don't know Greek, nor do I know if you are giving an adequate translation. I do know that the scriptures continually attest to the need for water baptism, even without this verse. And what you've shown is only that the Greek text, if you are correct, is not grammatical. That is hardly proof. Besides which, even according to your view, they would have understood it to mean "repent for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost." Repenting for the remission of sins is important as I've already shown that Christ's disciples have been commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins. Like I said, the baptism of repentance. Clearly, baptism is needed for one to fully repent.

[3]AS for John's baptism, It was only preparing the way for Jesus, If it was for the remision of sins, Why would Paul get the disciple in Acts 19: 2--6 to be baptised into Christ??

If John's baptism remited sins, Why did Jesus have to die??.
You have got it wrong..AGAIN.

I see you have no adequate response here so you arbitrarily say that I'm wrong. I find it funny because you aren't even disputing what the text says. But let me ask you this, if John's baptism didn't remit sins, why does the Bible say that we should be baptized for the remittance of sin?

And Jesus had to die because he and he alone can atone for our sins. Baptism does nothing without Christ's sacrifice. Still, if we are commanded to be baptized, I listen to this admonishment.

[4] Paul was saved at least three days that we know of, Before he was baptised in water..DONT YOU KNOW THE BIBLE??, I thought you said you believed it??

Look at  Act 9: 6,
Every good Bible scholar agree that v6 was Pauls conversion, When he said,
" Lord, What wilt thou have me to do".
That is plain enough..ISN'T IT??.
Now look at v17, Ananias called Paul, " Brother Soul", You wouldn't call Hitler, "Brother Hitler would you??. NO.. NO..
Ananias knew Paul was saved.

This in no way proves that he was saved, only that he underwent a conversion experience. Christ revealed himself to Paul and was overcome with a desire to follow his council. The Lord then sent a man imbued with Priesthood authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel to him. I find your interpretation a little troubling as there really is no point in undergoing baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit if one is already saved. It sounds like a waste of time.

But in short, this in no way proves what you say it does. You seem irritated at my supposed non-biblical interpretations and want me to specifically point out places in the Bible that support my view, which I've done for the most part. Unfortunately, you refuse to do likewise. You take an obscure phrase like the above and claim that it proves Paul was saved. So I'll ask you, where does the Bible actually say that Paul was saved?

Now look at v17.
Paul received the Holy Ghost, You can't have the Holy Ghost unless you are saved.
PLEASE NOTE, This was three days after Paul's conversion, And before he was baptised in water...Proving that water baptisn doesn't save.
But you think you are smarter than God, You think you know more than God.

Please tell me where I said that I am smarter than God. Your constant defamation of my intelligence and character is causing you to lose substantial credibility. I know what God has revealed to us, and we are commanded to be baptized. Why command if it is not needed? Why not just suggest baptism?

[5]I have shown you scriptures that prove you don't need to be baptised in water to e saved, ARE YOU SAYING JESUS IS DECEIVING US???.

No, you have distorted the Savior's words so far as to cause them to lose any meaning. Christ told us to be baptized in his name. He himself was baptized. All of his disciples were likewise. You don't think it's a bit odd that baptism is so prevalent among the early saints if it is not a saving ordinance?

[6]Nowhere does the Bilble say water baptism remits sins, Only Acts 2: 38, But I have proved from the originla Greek text and meaning, That it doesn't.

Baptism is said to remit sins several times, I've posted them in this thread. You've pretty much conceded that that is what's being said, then you blatantly ignore them and say that John's baptism doesn't remit sins. I've never seen someone professing to be a disciple of Christ so blatantly misstate and misunderstand the words of the Savior and his apostles.

[7]You are either saved the TRUE Bible way, Or your not saved, And as you aren't saved the Bible way, YOU AREN'T SAVED.
You cannot be saved and be a mormon.. It is imposible, If you were saved, Your reborn spirit would convict you of the errors of the mormon church.

This phrase I find of considerable interest. Tell me what exactly bars Mormons from being saved. I'm really curious as to what you think is required for salvation. In as concise a statement as possible, tell me what one must do to be saved.

I'm sory to have to tell you this, but, YOUR NOT SAVED.
   

I'm going to ignore this entirely inappropriate and unchristianlike statement. This only shows a profound lack of respect both for myself and for God's word.

[the_last_gunslinger]

[1]It isn't me who is saying God's way is false, Your the one who has added, Batsism in water to Jn 3: 5..NOT ME..

And you're the one that added the notion that it means cleansed in the Word of Christ. At least my interpretation is more plausible since there is Biblical precedent for water baptism. Your interpretation is in no way substantiated.

[2]What I said about the original Greek Bible text is true, Which proves water baptism doesn't save.
To understand the Bible, You have to know who is diong the talking and when it is God or a Biblical character or the translater.
Reading the Bible at face falue misleads some people if they don't know the whole Bible in it's right context.

But the only way you can know the true meaning is if you have the original manuscript written by the hand of whichever prophet recorded it. Whether you are right in your interpretation of the Greek, it doesn't matter. I don't rely on the translations of men to know the will of God. This knowledge comes through God's prophets who have been ordained as His mouthpiece on earth, attested to by the Holy Spirit. This is the only way I know of to be sure of God's will, and this is where I place my trust. It also just so happens that the Bible supports my positions as well.

For instance, Acys 2: 38 misleads  people into believing baptim for the remision of sins For those who doent know the whole Bible and the true way of salvation.

I don't know how interpreting repent and be baptized as needing baptism is misleading. It says it right there in the text. Your position is that when it says be baptized, it actually means you don't need to be baptized. That doesn't make much sense.

[3]Johns baptism dodn't remit sins, And the Bible doesn't say baptism remits sins.
Not if yoy know the original Greek text and meaning.
As I said, If Johns baptism remited sins, Then why would Jesus have to die and  take our sins??.
PLEASE NOTE, John's baptism was before Jesus sied, So it couldn't remit sins...COULD IT??.

What do you mean the Bible doesn't say baptism remits sins? It says this exact phrase probably a dozen times in the Bible. As for why Jesus had to die for our sins, that's pretty obvious. He was the only one who could atone for them, being perfect. Baptism without a savior has no power. But Christ still told us to be baptized, as did his disciples. I could ask the same question of you, though. Even you believe that repentance is needed. Why did Jesus have to die for our sins if we have to repent? Keep in mind, baptism itself isn't as important as the fact that it represents our repentance.

[4]Paul was saved before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost and he was baptised in the Holy Ghost before he was baptised in water.
Proving that neither the baptism in the Holy Ghost or water baptism saves.
Conversion is saved...WHAT DO YOU THINK IT WAS???.
I believe the Bible whereas you try to twist what it says.

No, conversion just means that you move from a state of unbelief to a state of belief. You claim that I twist the Bible, but you claim conversion means saved. I'll challenge you again, since you want me to prove everything through the Bible. Where does it say Paul was Saved before baptism? And if baptism wasn't needed, why did God call forth one of his servants to administer baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost immediately after? Maybe because these were necessary ordinances for salvation.....

[5]You think your are smarter than God by twisting His words.
In effect what you are saying is,
God, you are wrong and I am right.

Your lying is wholly unbecoming of you. Please tell me where I said I thought I was smarter than God or that I thought he was wrong. Interpreting scriptures differently, even if I am wrong, does not mean I think God is mistaken, just that I look at his word in a different light. You are being entirely disingenuous by making such absurd comments.

[6]Where are we comanded to be baptised to be saved?.
Where does the Bible say baptism remits sins??? And don't use Acts 2: 38.

What an absurd request. You are now trying to win a debate by refusing to allow me to use scriptures that supports my position. That's a little unfair, but I'll oblige.

Mark 1:4-John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins

Luke 3:3-And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Acts 13:24-When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

1st Peter 3:21-The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Above are four scriptures that either specifically mention baptism for the remission of sins or make reference to the baptism of repentance, or in the case of Peter, specifically say that baptism saves them.

[7]You are twisting the truth because you know to accept it, You'll know you and your faith is wrong.

I have twisted nothing. I have stated plainly my position, supported it with scriptural evidence, yet you reject it. I can't help that. You have the God-given agency to reject truth and I can't force you to see it. I can only share and testify of what I know. I also do not care that you believe my faith to be wrong. I am not concerned with how others see me, only in how God sees me. I know of the validity of the truth as it spirit bore witness. That's all I'm concerned with.

I can only show you what the Bible and Greek say, I can't make you believe it.
Your arguement is with God and the Bible..Not with me.

You have done nothing but show me your incorrect interpretation. As I've said otherwise, I rely on God for answers, and that is sufficient for me. I have no argument with God as I am not in conflict with his words. What does trouble me is your inability to grasp the most basic gospel principles. But again, I can't make you see the truthfulness of my position...that is up to you.

[Dr. Truth]

[1]It isn't me who is saying God's way is false, Your the one who has added, Batsism in water to Jn 3: 5..NOT ME..

And you're the one that added the notion that it means cleansed in the Word of Christ. At least my interpretation is more plausible since there is Biblical precedent for water baptism. Your interpretation is in no way substantiated.

[2]What I said about the original Greek Bible text is true, Which proves water baptism doesn't save.
To understand the Bible, You have to know who is diong the talking and when it is God or a Biblical character or the translater.
Reading the Bible at face falue misleads some people if they don't know the whole Bible in it's right context.

But the only way you can know the true meaning is if you have the original manuscript written by the hand of whichever prophet recorded it. Whether you are right in your interpretation of the Greek, it doesn't matter. I don't rely on the translations of men to know the will of God. This knowledge comes through God's prophets who have been ordained as His mouthpiece on earth, attested to by the Holy Spirit. This is the only way I know of to be sure of God's will, and this is where I place my trust. It also just so happens that the Bible supports my positions as well.

For instance, Acys 2: 38 misleads  people into believing baptim for the remision of sins For those who doent know the whole Bible and the true way of salvation.

I don't know how interpreting repent and be baptized as needing baptism is misleading. It says it right there in the text. Your position is that when it says be baptized, it actually means you don't need to be baptized. That doesn't make much sense.

[3]Johns baptism dodn't remit sins, And the Bible doesn't say baptism remits sins.
Not if yoy know the original Greek text and meaning.
As I said, If Johns baptism remited sins, Then why would Jesus have to die and  take our sins??.
PLEASE NOTE, John's baptism was before Jesus sied, So it couldn't remit sins...COULD IT??.

What do you mean the Bible doesn't say baptism remits sins? It says this exact phrase probably a dozen times in the Bible. As for why Jesus had to die for our sins, that's pretty obvious. He was the only one who could atone for them, being perfect. Baptism without a savior has no power. But Christ still told us to be baptized, as did his disciples. I could ask the same question of you, though. Even you believe that repentance is needed. Why did Jesus have to die for our sins if we have to repent? Keep in mind, baptism itself isn't as important as the fact that it represents our repentance.

[4]Paul was saved before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost and he was baptised in the Holy Ghost before he was baptised in water.
Proving that neither the baptism in the Holy Ghost or water baptism saves.
Conversion is saved...WHAT DO YOU THINK IT WAS???.
I believe the Bible whereas you try to twist what it says.

No, conversion just means that you move from a state of unbelief to a state of belief. You claim that I twist the Bible, but you claim conversion means saved. I'll challenge you again, since you want me to prove everything through the Bible. Where does it say Paul was Saved before baptism? And if baptism wasn't needed, why did God call forth one of his servants to administer baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost immediately after? Maybe because these were necessary ordinances for salvation.....

[5]You think your are smarter than God by twisting His words.
In effect what you are saying is,
God, you are wrong and I am right.

Your lying is wholly unbecoming of you. Please tell me where I said I thought I was smarter than God or that I thought he was wrong. Interpreting scriptures differently, even if I am wrong, does not mean I think God is mistaken, just that I look at his word in a different light. You are being entirely disingenuous by making such absurd comments.

[6]Where are we comanded to be baptised to be saved?.
Where does the Bible say baptism remits sins??? And don't use Acts 2: 38.

What an absurd request. You are now trying to win a debate by refusing to allow me to use scriptures that supports my position. That's a little unfair, but I'll oblige.

Mark 1:4-John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins

Luke 3:3-And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Acts 13:24-When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

1st Peter 3:21-The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Above are four scriptures that either specifically mention baptism for the remission of sins or make reference to the baptism of repentance, or in the case of Peter, specifically say that baptism saves them.

[7]You are twisting the truth because you know to accept it, You'll know you and your faith is wrong.

I have twisted nothing. I have stated plainly my position, supported it with scriptural evidence, yet you reject it. I can't help that. You have the God-given agency to reject truth and I can't force you to see it. I can only share and testify of what I know. I also do not care that you believe my faith to be wrong. I am not concerned with how others see me, only in how God sees me. I know of the validity of the truth as it spirit bore witness. That's all I'm concerned with.

I can only show you what the Bible and Greek say, I can't make you believe it.
Your arguement is with God and the Bible..Not with me.

You have done nothing but show me your incorrect interpretation. As I've said otherwise, I rely on God for answers, and that is sufficient for me. I have no argument with God as I am not in conflict with his words. What does trouble me is your inability to grasp the most basic gospel principles. But again, I can't make you see the truthfulness of my position...that is up to you.

[1]You said,

And you're the one that added the notion that it means cleansed in the Word of Christ. At least my interpretation is more plausible since there is Biblical precedent for water baptism. Your interpretation is in no way substantiated.
[End quote].

I gave you scriptures that ptave the water is the word.  It wasn't my own added notion.
PLEASE NOTE, Jn 3: 5 doesn't say,
"You must be baptised in water and born of the Spirit"..DOES IT?,, NO..NO..
It says, Born of the water and the Spirit...NOT WATER BAPTISM.


[2]I do have the original Hebrew and Greek study Bible, And Heb/ Greek books that prove what I say, Besides, If you knew the Bible, You would know that water baptism doesn't save.
Paul was saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost but he wasn't baptised in water.
The gentiles were saved, Baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But theu weren't baptised in water.
The disciples were baptised in water, But they weren't saved, Until some were in Jn 20: 22.
If you were saved, You would know water baptism doesn't save.

The Greek new testament texts say water baptism doesn't save, It says,
"Water baptism is the expression, Not the medium, A type, Not the cause".

The reason we have to repent is, To receive the remssion of sins, And get born again Which is conversion.