You confuse what is going on outwardly, i.e. getting into water, with what is happening internally in the believer. Peter is saying that baptism isn't what happens externally, but what happens internally.Originally Posted by losthorizon
Coffee Break
You confuse what is going on outwardly, i.e. getting into water, with what is happening internally in the believer. Peter is saying that baptism isn't what happens externally, but what happens internally.
guest
John's baptism says "for the remission of sins"
How do you reconcile these two?
baptism
"in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"
"of repentance for the remission of sins"
IOW, if baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins, then so too was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Did John's baptism of repentance give remission of sins?
If it did, why did John's disciples need to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?
If it did not, why does "baptized ... in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" mean baptism= remission of sins in Acts 2:38?
guest
You are mistaken - all of John's disciples did not need to be rebaptized. If we are to believe what is written in Holy Writ (and we should) then John’s baptism and the ordinance of Christian baptism as commanded by Jesus was/is “for the remission of sins". John’s charge from God was to “make ready for the Lord a people prepared” (Lk. 1:17). This was accomplished by his work including his baptism “for the remission of sins.” Those who were baptized by John were ready for the Lord in every way we are made ready for the Lord today when we obey the gospel of grace.
Apollos and all of the apostles were baptized with John’s baptism for the remission of sins and they were not rebaptized. In Acts 19 twelve men were rebaptized but I agree with Robertson – they were rebaptized because they were “grossly ignorant of the meaning of John’s baptism as regards repentance, the Messiahship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit.”
There is no record of the hundreds or thousands of believers who were baptized with John’s baptism for remission of sins needing to be rebaptized – their sins were remitted by the blood of Christ just as my sins were remitted by the blood of Christ when I believed, repented and was baptized in water “for the remission of sins”.
Do you think baptism in water is for the remission of sins as stated in Acts 2:38 or was Peter mistaken?Act 19:5
The name of the Lord Jesus (to onoma ton kuriou Iēsou). Apollos was not rebaptized. The twelve apostles were not rebaptized. Jesus received no other baptism than that of John. The point here is simply that these twelve men were grossly ignorant of the meaning of John’s baptism as regards repentance, the Messiahship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul had them baptized, not so much again, as really baptized this time, in the name or on the authority of the Lord Jesus as he had himself commanded (Mat_28:19) and as was the universal apostolic custom. Proper understanding of “Jesus” involved all the rest including the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Luke does not give a formula, but simply explains that now these men had a proper object of faith (Jesus) and were now really baptized. ~ WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, Robertson
Grand Master
I would like to ask if anyone thinks the purpose of the water changed when Johns Baptized before Jesus death and when the apostles baptized after Jesus death.
We know that Johns baptism and Jesus Baptism are different, John the Baptist testifies to this, and we know that Johns Baptism was of repentance, for the remission of sins.
But we also know that after Jesus died, the remission of sins comes from his sacrifice and blood, which he shed on the cross.
And we know that water baptism is a part of being baptised into Jesus name, as the scripture records this.
So is there a difference in 'the purpose of the water' under Johns Baptism before Jesus died, and 'under Baptism into Jesus name' after Jesus died and rose again?
guest
You are not understanding me.
Do we both agree that.....if baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins, then so too was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?I think we do.
So, do we both agree that.....those baptized with water unto repentance, were not forgiven at that time, because the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world had not done so yet?I think we do.
So, what did John's baptism mean by baptism of repentance for the remission of sin?
IOW, what did John say they were to do, for their sin to be forgiven, since the baptism did not forgive their sin?
If the baptism forgave their sin, even future, he would not have told them something else to do. What he told them to do, is what forgives sin.
guest
As stated. Peter said the exact same thing in chapters 3 and 10 as he did in 2. He was not confused or preaching different gospels.
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Come up here
I guess I didn't know that water would save a person in the flood? Does water save you from water?
BelieversNotes.com - Bible Study Notes
End Times - The Days We Live in Short Video
For it is better that he say to you, 'Come up here,' Than that you should be put lower in the presence of the prince, Whom your eyes have seen. ~ Proverbs 25:7
Come up here
So if an unbeliever got baptized by John The Baptist then did they receive remissions of sins without belief?
I am curious on how that works with the Theif on the Cross being your argument is that we don't know if he was baptized by John or not.
BelieversNotes.com - Bible Study Notes
End Times - The Days We Live in Short Video
For it is better that he say to you, 'Come up here,' Than that you should be put lower in the presence of the prince, Whom your eyes have seen. ~ Proverbs 25:7
guest
What do you think Peter meant when he said...eight souls were saved by water…Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you...?
guest
Then we agree that when taken as a whole - Acts 2:38, Act 3:19, Act 10:43 teaches us that one must believe, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or is that contrary to your theology?
guest
It meant exactly that - the one who obeyed God via faith and repentance was baptized for the remission of sins, i.e., in order to have sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. Do you think it means something else?
God forgives sins baptism does not forgive sins. You will need to clarify what you mean when you say - "What he told them to do, is what forgives sin." What did God tell them to do?If the baptism forgave their sin, even future, he would not have told them something else to do. What he told them to do, is what forgives sin.
Coffee Break
Can we all just insert words to make the Scriptures say what we want? You still have not addressed the apostle.
Acts 2:38 ( KJV )
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.
why do you keep bringing up John's baptism? We are Speaking of baptism in the name of Christ. Peter is not speaking of John's batpsim when he says it is for the remission of sins.
What exactly does this mean? Who said baptsim was unto baptism???baptism is unto something else, not itself.
Coffee Break
Just because you believe it doesn't make it so. First of all, I don't know who is saying baptism is means of justification. Baptism is done after one is justified by faith, it is necessary for salvation in the end.
I understand your logic, the problem is, it flies in the face of Scripture. You keep speaking of the heart condition, which I agree is necessary, however, it does not stop there as you seem to want to believe. According to Jesus one "Must" obey his commands, one "Must" believe and be baptized, one "Must" repent. It doesn't matter what one's heart condition is if they continue to live in adultery, or if they they do not do "His" commands. You can say the one who loves Jesus has a good heart, but Jesus said 'He who does my commands, it is he who loves me.' It's easy for one to convince themselves that they love Jesus and go about their way, however they are only fooling themselves, not Jesus, if they don't obey He says they don't love Him. So, since it was Jesus Himself who gave the command to be baptized, if one is not baptized (Assuming the have the opportunity) they are not obeying His commands and therefore according to His words they do not love Him.You don't understand my logic because, it would seem, you don't see the difference between internal states such as: faith, repentance, regret, confession, love of God, fear of God, a view to the eternal, agreement with God's worldview, introspection, a mind set on things above, a mind set on the spirit, a spirit that cries "abba Father", and the like as compared to external expressions of faith like Baptism, circumcision, communion, keeping the Sabbath, and the like. We aren't saved by performing the external expressions of faith. We are saved because we have the right kind of heart.
Cultural practice?Not really. Again, getting into the tub is a cultural practice in which the initiate is making a commitment to become the disciple of Jesus Christ. If his getting into the tub doesn't represent an honest, genuine commitment to become a disciple of Jesus, his baptism is meaningless. If he makes a commitment to be a disciple, but for some reason he isn't able to get into a baptismal pool, he already has what the baptism represents.
Here again we have an assumption.
I have not seen any such promise made in Scripture, it seems you are assuming as much.If he makes a commitment to be a disciple, but for some reason he isn't able to get into a baptismal pool, he already has what the baptism represents
Again, another assumption. Please show me one Christian in the NT that was not water baptized. If there are none then your statement is just an assumption, and in light of the fact that water baptism was a regular practice in the NT church it would seem a very inaccurate one.On the contrary, the expression "baptized into Christ" is a metonym for "became a disciple of Christ." Those who have become a disciple of Christ, whether they have gotten into a baptismal pool or not, are baptized into Christ.
Acts 2:38 ( KJV )Who? Where?
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.
So, you're going to answer my question with a question? The answer was easy, it wasn't good enough, just as simply believing in his heart wasn't enough for Abraham it also isn't enough for your hypothetical Christian.I'll answer that if you answer this. In Exodus 32:9, God tells Moses,
Notice how Moses pleads for his people and what is the basis for his plea? He appeals to God's chesed, his covenant faithfulness to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Moses argues that God made a promise to the fathers, and since God is not one to renege on a promise, he should not wipe out these people. So, here is the question. Why didn't Abraham make the same argument? Why didn't Abraham plead for his son, saying that God made a promise and that if God were to kill his son, he would renege on a promise? After all, Isaac was the promised son, and Abraham could have appealed to God's chesed, his covenant faithfulness, just as Moses did.The Lord said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation." Then Moses entreated the Lord his God, and said, "O Lord, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, saying,`With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, `I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.' " So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Again, we have assumptions. Where does Scripture say that Baptism was a cultural practice? And, even if we agreed that it was, it wouldn't matter because Jesus said to make disciples, 'Baptizing" them and teaching them all that I have commanded you. He didn't say go make disciples using what ever method is popular that the time. The way He said to do it is the way we are to do it.You say Baptism is a matter of obedience. You haven't proved that it is. The actual command is for us to become disciples of Jesus Christ. Baptism was a cultural practice associated with becoming a disciple, which may or may not be a cultural practice today. If a man happens to live in a time and place where baptism is not a cultural rite of passage ceremony marking entrance into the disciplehood of Jesus Christ, but the man became a disciple anyway, then he has what the baptism represents, which is all he needs.
Coffee Break
[QUOTE=Sirus;2553017]of course!
Wow, first they don't believe Jesus, now they don't believe God.
Huh? What do you base this on? It says he was sent to baptize unto repentance saying they should believe on Christ for remission of sins. It does not say he was sent to baptize for the remission of sins.
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Joh 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
Matthew 3:4-6 ( KJV )
And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mark 1:4 ( KJV )
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:5 ( KJV )
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
John 1:33 ( KJV )
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
I did answer concerning John, however, you said you didn't agree.It's amazing that no one can answer concerning John and for the remission of sins, but you sure have a lot to say about Acts 2:38.
Concerning Acts 2:38, I notice you nor the rest who hold your opinion have dealt with it. It is a clear statement, yet you guys continue to try to sidestep it.
Coffee Break
This thread should make it quite clear why there are so many different denominations in Christianity. People have their pet doctrines and will do what they deem necessary to hold on to those doctrines, including denying clear teaching from Scripture. There is nothing difficult to understand about Peter's statement in acts 2:38, it is clear and concise, however, it doesn't agree with the modern ideas and doctrines that have been added to the Christian faith, such as those of the Reformation. In particular the faith alone doctrine which is one of the doctrines driving the refusal of the Apostle's teaching in Acts 2:38. So, each one will have to decide whether they will believe the doctrines of men or the doctrines of the Apostles, I know which one I will choose.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks