Water Baptism

[losthorizon]

When are you going to respond to post #428... a question Eric asked?

I answered Eric’s question about 5 pages back - unless John was being deceptive (and he wasn’t) "for the remission of sins" means exactly that – one’s sins were remitted.

[thedee]

I answered Eric’s question about 5 pages back - unless John was being deceptive (and he wasn’t) "for the remission of sins" means exactly that – one’s sins were remitted.

So when was the thief on the cross's sins remitted?

[losthorizon]

So when was the thief on the cross's sins remitted?

All sinners are/were saved "by grace, through faith" via the blood of Christ, regardless of when and where they lived – Jesus is the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. The thief was no exception to this truism. Again, the thief was not a candidate for Christian baptism – he died before the Lord commanded His disciples to “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,” You and I and all who read his post live on this side of the cross and we are all required to believe, repent and be baptized in water for the remission of sins. You were baptized in water – yes?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

From either perspective, I think it is fallacious to use the singular, between-covenants, cross-affixed example of the professing thief as the primary foundation for NT baptism, which was not yet in effect when he was promised paradise.

[BroRog]

LOL - "his unbaptism would be considered baptism" - what kind of doublespeak is that? One is either baptized or he is not baptized. If one is to walk with Jesus one will be baptized as Jesus commands. The one who is not baptized is not "in Christ". Do you actually read your Bible?

Do you know that I almost lost my posting privileges for questioning whether someone read the Bible? And you know, I am beginning to wonder if this forum has moderators anymore. I was told to simply give direct answers to questions. So here is my answer. Yes, I still read the Bible. And I defend my statements with scripture when asked. I have already explained to you, two or three times that baptism was the culturally accepted practice to indicate when someone intended to become the disciple of someone else. I brought you to passages of the Bible to show you this was the case. To accuse me of not reading the Bible is to convict yourself of not reading my posts to you in which I take you to passages of the Bible to show you things.

[losthorizon]

Do you know that I almost lost my posting privileges for questioning whether someone read the Bible? And you know, I am beginning to wonder if this forum has moderators anymore. I was told to simply give direct answers to questions. So here is my answer. Yes, I still read the Bible. And I defend my statements with scripture when asked. I have already explained to you, two or three times that baptism was the culturally accepted practice to indicate when someone intended to become the disciple of someone else. I brought you to passages of the Bible to show you this was the case. To accuse me of not reading the Bible is to convict yourself of not reading my posts to you in which I take you to passages of the Bible to show you things.

I didn't accuse you of not reading the Bible - I asked if you read your Bible, i.e., do you comprehend what your read as you turn the pages. The reason I asked was because you have repeatedly made the statement that baptism is of no use to God's people today. Your notion is in direct conflict with the teachings of the NT - the teaching that baptism is essential to the gospel of grace. Baptism was instituted and commanded by the Lord "until He comes again". Whatever Jesus commands becomes essential the moment it is commanded. Your mishandling of God's word is why I asked the question and your mishandling of the word continues in your latest post.

I would suggest you actually read passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Romans 6:3-5 and Galatians 3:27. Those passage (and many others) all confirm God's revelation regarding baptism - the revelation that one must beleive and be baptized to be saved.

[divaD]

I would suggest you actually read passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Romans 6:3-5 and Galatians 3:27. Those passage (and many others) all confirm God's revelation regarding baptism - the revelation that one must beleive and be baptized to be saved.

If one believes that the baptism is fire, and that this occurs the second they accept Christ, then what is the problem? Nowhere in Mark 16:16 does it even remotely say that it's specifically water baptism. It just calls it baptism. Your understanding of Scriptures would have people saved apart from believing, since not everyone would be baptized in water the second they accepted Christ. That seems unreasonable to me. I just don't get it?

[losthorizon]

If one believes that the baptism is fire, and that this occurs the second they accept Christ, then what is the problem? Nowhere in Mark 16:16 does it even remotely say that it's specifically water baptism. It just calls it baptism. Your understanding of Scriptures would have people saved apart from believing, since not everyone would be baptized in water the second they accepted Christ. That seems unreasonable to me. I just don't get it?

Obviously there are many things you do not get including the meaning of the “baptism of fire” noted in Matthew 3:11. The truth that the baptism commanded by Jesus in Mark 16:16 is water baptism remains true. The fact that belief and baptism precede salvation comes from the words of the Lord. If you refuse to believe Jesus you will not believe me.

Mark 16:16.
Is baptized - Is initiated into the church by the application of water, as significant that he is a sinner, and needs the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit. ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)
"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

[thedee]

All sinners are/were saved "by grace, through faith" via the blood of Christ, regardless of when and where they lived – Jesus is the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. The thief was no exception to this truism. Again, the thief was not a candidate for Christian baptism – he died before the Lord commanded His disciples to “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,” You and I and all who read his post live on this side of the cross and we are all required to believe, repent and be baptized in water for the remission of sins. You were baptized in water – yes?

So the thief on the cross is saved in a different way then us today?

[losthorizon]

So the thief on the cross is saved in a different way then us today?

What do you mean by "in a different way"? Did you read what I posted - salvation is "by grace, through faith" via the blood of the Lamb of God who was slain from the creation of the world.

[divaD]

What do you mean by "in a different way"? Did you read what I posted - salvation is "by grace, through faith" via the blood of the Lamb of God who was slain from the creation of the world.

I'm just not following your logic. Here it seems you're saying 'salvation is "by grace, through faith", while over here it seems you're saying 'salvation is "by grace, through faith plus water baptism", and that these are the same.

[losthorizon]

I'm just not following your logic. Here it seems you're saying 'salvation is "by grace, through faith", while over here it seems you're saying 'salvation is "by grace, through faith plus water baptism", and that these are the same.

Holy Writ tell us that salvation is by grace through faith - a faith which *works through love*? This being true - we are saved by grace through a faith that works (obeys) through love. We are to obey from the heart the gospel delivered and that gospel includes baptism for the remission of sins...faith working through love...

Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight – the only thing that matters is faith working through love.

[thedee]

What do you mean by "in a different way"? Did you read what I posted - salvation is "by grace, through faith" via the blood of the Lamb of God who was slain from the creation of the world.

The thief was not water baptized so that means water baptism is not essential for salvation. Would you agree the thief was not water baptized? Why would he of been baptized by John if he didn't believe?

[ProjectPeter]

My question to folks... knowing this is something practiced by Jesus and all the apostles.... why WOULDN'T you be water baptized?

[thedee]

My question to folks... knowing this is something practiced by Jesus and all the apostles.... why WOULDN'T you be water baptized?

I don't know of a believer who "refuses" to be water baptized. I do know believers who have not been baptized due to whatever circumstances. I know they love the Lord and serve Him. My wife was baptized about 4 years ago. She was saved before being baptized. I refuse to accept the doctrine that if you don't get water baptized in time before your death you will be damned to hell.