Water Baptism

[Sirus]

So what is your point? Peter told those Jews on the day of Pentecost who had accepted (via faith) that Jesus is Messiah to repent and be baptized in the name of the triune God for the remission of sins.

That Peter was speaking to all Israel, not just those that believed and asked what to do. He did not tell those that believed to repent. That would be redundant and absurd.

[Sirus]

Well - we at least agree on this point. One of the reason our friend Slug remains so confused on baptism is because he fails to recognize water baptism in critical passages such as Acts 2:38.

Actually, I'd guess it is his right thinking concerning the topic that he takes it a little too far, but at least he understands those that believe in His name receive the remission of sins before they hit the water.

[Diggindeeper]

Actually, I'd guess it is his right thinking concerning the topic that he takes it a little too far, but at least he understands those that believe in His name receive the remission of sins before they hit the water.

That's exactly the point of this whole discussion! Why couldn't I have said that sooner?

Now, we are back at square one. After 257 posts, you Sirus have summed up the whole, entire New Testament.
What more needs to be said in this thread?

[Butch5]

What amazes me is the fact that Gentile Christians will strongly argue for Baptism when Paul said, "If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you", and "In Christ circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love."

It amazes you that someone would take the apostle's words at face value?

Am I correct in assuming then that you deny the aposltes words?

He could have easily said the same thing about Baptism. "If you receive [baptism] Christ will be of no benefit to you", and "in Christ neither [baptism] nor [unbaptism] means anything but faith working through love."

No, he couldn't have. If he had he would have been contradicting both Christ and the other apostsles.

Why do I say this? According to Paul's theology, we aren't saved on the basis of a ritual we perform, as in circumcision, but according to our heart condition. This is why he can say that we are saved by apart from the works of the law, because ritual expressions of the faith are not necessary or essential.

Now you are mixing obedience to Christ with rituals of the Law. Where does Paul speak of "Rituals" as saving? When he speaks of circumcision, he is speaking of the Law of Moses, which we know the Jews thought was a means of justification. That is the argument that Paul makes.

If one wants to argue that Baptism is essential and necessary, then one must also argue that keeping the Sabbath, keeping the festivals, not mixing cloth, and circumcision are essential for salvation. The logic is entirely the same and if we don't get that, we totally miss what Paul was saying and what Peter was asking Israel to do.

No, in saying that is seems to indicate to me that you have missed the point of what Peter and Paul are saying. Paul is not arguing that an act of obedience has no bearing on salvation. He is arguing that the Mosaic Law is not a means of justification. Thinking one could be justified by keeping the Mosaic Law was the thinking of the Jews, Paul argues that this is not so. Using your logic then, one could also conclude that repentance isn't necessary either, are we going to go there?

Peter wasn't asking Israel to get baptized because stepping into a tub of water did anything. Peter was asking Israel to get baptized because getting baptized into Jesus meant that I agreed to be a disciple of Christ and believe what he taught, and the reason why I would do such a thing is because I meant it. I get into the pool, knowing that getting into the pool means that I want to be a follower of Jesus, worship him as Lord, agree with his teaching, accept the fact that I am a sinner in need of access to God via a mediator, etc. And I believe this with all my heart.

Agreed, however, one must still get into the tub.

Paul argues that the Gentiles don't need to get circumcised, not because God substituted one external expression of the faith (circumcision) with another external expression of the faith (baptism) but because external expressions of the faith are meaningless "in Christ." We aren't placed "in Christ" through an external expression of the faith, but through an inner transformation of the spirit.

You might want to check with the apostles on this one. It seems now you are contradicting two apostles.

We aren't placed "in Christ" through an external expression of the faith

Galatians 3:26-27 ( KJV )
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

It seems that Paul thinks one is entered into Christ through an external expression of faith.

In Romans 2, Paul argues that if a man did the things of the law, even if he wasn't circumcised, it would be as if he was circumcised.

Let's be more precise. He says if the Gentiles which do not have the Law do in their hearts the things in the Law they are a Law unto themselves. He is expressly talking about people who did not have the Law, he is not talking about People who had the Law and simply either ignored it or refused to obey it.

And I believe he would say the same thing about baptism and or the same reason. If a man loves God, has the spirit of God in him, believes what Christ said, worships Jesus, loves him, obeys his teaching, but hasn't (for some reason) been baptized, then it would be as if he was baptized. Why? Baptism can be, but not necessarily be, an outward expression of an internal faith. If a man has the internal faith, trust, humility, humbleness, love for God, etc. he already has what the baptism would represent if he had been baptized. There is nothing magic about the Baptism itself. For those in Christ, baptism or not being baptized means nothing.

Well, you are making an assumption that again is contradictory to the apostles words. You said,

If a man loves God, has the spirit of God in him,

According to the apostle a man does not have the Spirit of God in him until after he is baptized.

However, even if we were to accept your statement, let me ask you a question, you said,

And I believe he would say the same thing about baptism and or the same reason. If a man loves God, has the spirit of God in him, believes what Christ said, worships Jesus, loves him, obeys his teaching, but hasn't (for some reason) been baptized, then it would be as if he was baptized. Why? Baptism can be, but not necessarily be, an outward expression of an internal faith. If a man has the internal faith, trust, humility, humbleness, love for God, etc. he already has what the baptism would represent if he had been baptized. There is nothing magic about the Baptism itself. For those in Christ, baptism or not being baptized means nothing.

Why would this be good enough for this man and yet not good enough for Abraham? You see God knew Abraham's heart also, He knew that Abraham would offer up Isaac if He asked him to. Why wasn't that enough? Why did God make Abraham go through with offering up Isaac? Also notice what God said when Abraham did offer Isaac in "Obedience" to God's command.


Genesis 22:15-18 ( KJV )
And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Notice God's words, "because thou hast done this thing". He didn't say because you really believed in your heart, no, He said "Because you have done this thing". The oath was sworn to Abraham because he "Obeyed" God's command.

So, if Abraham didn't receive the oath by simple believing in his heart, why would your hypothetical Christian receive the Spirit without obedience?

[Butch5]

I can't agree with this logic. Baptism and Circumcision are two completely different things. Jesus commanded the apostles to baptise in the name of the father, son and holy Ghost as part of the commission. He never told them to circumcise.

Jesus said he that believes and is baptized will be saved. He never mentioned anything about circumcision.

Under Christ Jesus in the new covenant, circumcision does not mean anything (Gal 6:15), but baptism does as Jesus said to the disciples in Mk 16:16 - he that believes and is baptized will be saved.

I don't think Paul is saying that just becuase we no longer need circumcision, we no longer have to be baptized.

What amazes me is the fact that Gentile Christians will strongly argue for Baptism when Paul said, "If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you", and "In Christ circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love." He could have easily said the same thing about Baptism. "If you receive [baptism] Christ will be of no benefit to you", and "in Christ neither [baptism] nor [unbaptism] means anything but faith working through love."

Why do I say this? According to Paul's theology, we aren't saved on the basis of a ritual we perform, as in circumcision, but according to our heart condition. This is why he can say that we are saved by apart from the works of the law, because ritual expressions of the faith are not necessary or essential. If one wants to argue that Baptism is essential and necessary, then one must also argue that keeping the Sabbath, keeping the festivals, not mixing cloth, and circumcision are essential for salvation. The logic is entirely the same and if we don't get that, we totally miss what Paul was saying and what Peter was asking Israel to do.

The circucision argument is used in an attempt to circumvent baptism.

[Slug1]

Grace does not require water to be activated. Grace looks only for faith.

Nothing is ever needed in addition to Gods grace to save a soul.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

We all know this... some in this thread follow their doctrine instead of the FULL COUNSEL of God's Word.

[Sirus]

I didn't say I didn't feel like a new creature, I said we can't trust feelings alone. We must trust God's word to be sure about anything. Trusting feelings is dangerous.

Amen to that! I didn't say anything about feelings.

"I do. There's no difference here. The life of the new creature is God's testimony. I am sorry you have not seen God's resurrection power in this manner. It is the norm to some degree if one is indeed born of God. No one is born of God and remains the same entirely."

Thinking we can trust our own human feelings can lead us to believe we are something we are not. But when we do Bible things in Bible ways, we can be absolutely sure we are living within His will.

Yea, that's what I said.

Are you saying that I am lying to you when I say you can trust God's word, but not your own personal feelings?

I guess I didn't think you would use the word feeling in such an absurd way. Who would think such nonsense? I was more talking about knowing through relationship and evidence and proof that perfectly lines up with Scripture. Demon worshipers 'feel', God's people 'feel'. God created us to feel. Nothing wrong with that unless your fruit is rotten.

No one ever taught that John 3:5 meant anything other than water baptism until the 1500's. Except, perhaps, the early Gnostics.

'No one' are strong words considering most are either not extant or considered heretics. What is, is because the victors write history. Victors in this case of course being the leavened church Paul and Peter said would come when they departed. The mustard seed grown into the greatest of trees through false doctrine that is inhabited by devils. The word of God -the gospel and truth- was corrupt even in Paul's day. So pointing out what has been taught has no more weight in any argument than what is taught today. Especially when you see most of the things believed. Well, if they can be so wrong in some areas how is it they are infallible here? No, you can keep that 'taught for millennia' argument.

Right, the baptism of John is not the same as the baptism of the New Covenant, which was predicated upon the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That's why people continued being baptized in water for the remission of sins after Pentecost, because it was a crucial facet of man's response to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You missed it. I said
John's baptism "did not point to the act of baptism removing sins"
It pointed to
"believing in Him that came after him for remission of sins"

So you believe that baptism is a confession with the mouth?

If so, how can you still not agree that it is necessary for salvation, when Romans 10:9-10 says confession with the mouth is necessary?

Is it possible to be baptized and not confess Christ?

Would you really hold the position that this is not water baptism because it does not say "in the name of" in the passage?

Absolutely. Same for the rest.

Would you say that Acts 2:38 is definitely water baptism, since it says, "in the name of?"

That's what's happening in those passages and that's what Jesus said to do, yes.

That's wonderful, but it's still subjective feelings, as opposed to objective truth of God's word.

Feeling? Where did I say anything about feeling? You're hilarious! not to mention I know 1000's that have the same testimony. I'm talking about righteousness and fruit unto God. It's sad how people knock the power of the cross in transforming sinners lives as 'feeling' speaking of what they know nothing about, while claiming to be the only ones holding the truth. Sounds familiar.

Not every command (Mark 16:16).

Read it again.

1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Are you suggesting I was not born again?

Also says through baptism (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-8).

Again, those are not water baptism.

These folks would not confess Christ openly. According to Jesus, they could not be saved in that condition (Matt. 10:32-33).

Well, lets just conclude those mentioned never came around. That they weren't converted at Pentecost or sometime later.

Peter couldn't have been saved in his denying condition, either. He had to repent.

He already repented being a disciple of John
He needed to turn, not repent. If he had not repented he would not have been a disciple of Jesus.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

[losthorizon]

Explain what it means to be baptized "into" Jesus Christ.

Paul says it all - what part do you keep misunderstanding?

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans 6:3-5 ESV)

The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ’s death and burial and to our death to sin (Rom. 6:1), forwards to Christ’s resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave ~ F. B. Meyer.

[losthorizon]

Jesus ACTUAL command was to "go and make disciples". That is his command.

You miss again Rog - Jesus commanded belief and baptism in the Great Commission - it is hard to miss...

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...He who believes and is baptized will be saved... ~ Jesus Christ

[losthorizon]

It means your body is clean.

You're wrong again Rog - baptism is not about "removing dirt from the body" - baptism now saves us by appealing to God for a clear conscience as it points us to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

...eight persons, were saved by water. Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(1Pe 3:20-21 ISV)

1 Per 3:21. The sense is, that baptism, including all that is properly meant by baptism as a religious rite - that is, baptism administered in connection with true repentance, and true faith in the Lord Jesus, and when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God - now saves us. ~ Albert Barnes

[losthorizon]

That Peter was speaking to all Israel, not just those that believed and asked what to do. He did not tell those that believed to repent. That would be redundant and absurd.

You misunderstand - Peter told those who believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Those Jews who refused to believe were not candidates for baptism. Context is king and you misunderstand the context of Acts 2:37, 38. You may want to re-read it.

[losthorizon]

Actually, I'd guess it is his right thinking concerning the topic that he takes it a little too far, but at least he understands those that believe in His name receive the remission of sins before they hit the water.

You are not correct - their sins were not remitted until they obeyed their Lord in baptiam - arise...be baptized...then your sins are washed away. Hard to miss the truth but you do...

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
(Act 22:16 NKJV)

[divaD]

You're wrong again Rog - baptism is not about "removing dirt from the body" - baptism now saves us by appealing to God for a clear conscience as it points us to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [INDENT]...eight persons, were saved by water. Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(1Pe 3:20-21 ISV)

1 Peter 3:20 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.

I've always found this concept intriguing. It says eight souls were saved by water. First there's the deluge. What did it do? It washed away the sins of the world, quite literally, as in the wicked perished. This same water the wicked perished in, these 8 souls were saved in. What happened when the waters dried up? Sin had been washed away, 8 souls were saved, and life was started anew, and once again, quite literally in this case. To me, that seems to be the same concept as water baptism. One is emmerced under water, which represents washing away sins, and in this same water they are also saved, and when they arise out of it, they are a new creature, because their old self washed away when they went under, and their new self emerged when they came up. Perhaps it's just me, but it appears those 8 souls were indeed saved by water, the same waters that washed away the sins of the world at the time. And it appears they started over at that time, since they were told to replinish the earth. It's almost as if they had been born again and given a new chance in life.

And of course, I may be way off here, but this is what enters my mind for some reason when I think of the flood, and water baptism.

[Sirus]

Because Jesus lived and tuaght while a different covenant was in effect. Upon His death, the New Covenant was established:

As pointed out, Jesus baptized [not him but his disciples]. When Jesus told them to go into the world and baptize they knew what he meant because he taught them. The disciples of John that followed Christ are baptized here. John and Paul say this was a baptism of belief on Him -in His name. He did this before the cross.

[Sirus]

Here is an interesting example from the book of Acts...


Acts 18:24-28
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

We need more of those Aquilas and Priscillas today! To draw people aside who know only the baptism of John and who could take them, and expound unto them the way of God more perfectly. Because that's what they are doing...preaching ONLY the baptism of John. John's ministry of baptism was to to teach and preach repentance. To PREPARE the way of the Lord! But this man, Apollas, ended up teaching through scriptures that Jesus was Christ. And he ended up mightily convincing the Jews!

...AFTER he learned more than John's baptism! it never says that he continued ONLY preaching John's baptism. He knew better, after he had been taught by Aquila and Priscilla.

There it is! Thank you!!!