Peter and Paul's witness of Water Baptism: Were they the Same?

[mailmandan]

John preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4), pointing to the time when God would remit sins at water baptism...

Was this baptism that John preached for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or was it for "in regards to/on the basis of" the forgiveness of sins received upon repentance? It's the latter. Also, in Matthew 3:11, we read - I baptize you with water "for" repentance.. Was this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance? OR was this baptism for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Getting water baptized in order to obtain repentance makes no sense at all. Repentance "precedes" water baptism.

Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

The NIV translates Acts 2:38 “Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. . . .”

The guilty sinners asked, “What shall we do?” Peter answered them by explaining what they needed to do to receive remission of sins, not by describing optional conduct. He did not mean, “Repent and be baptized because you already have received remission of sins.”

Once again,
in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

Acts 3:19 says, "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."

The apostle's sense is, repent and turn unto him, and acknowledge him as the Messiah and receive his doctrines.

The apostle's sense is, repent (change your mind -- new direction of this change of mind -- faith in the name of Jesus) end result -- turn to God/be converted. In Acts 20:21, we read - testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. *Two sides to the same coin.

What are his doctrines (in context of water baptism)...

Faith in the name of Jesus is in context (vs. 16). Water baptism is not even mentioned in Acts 3:19 or in the entire chapter of Acts 3.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

In regards to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (verse 4) and with "flesh" (verse 6). There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit.. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the Word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, divine life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the Word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23), but the Holy Spirit is the Agent who accomplishes the miracle of regeneration.

*So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.*

Just before Jesus ascended into heaven He commanded His disciples to go into all the world, to preach the gospel, to make disciples, and to baptize them (Matthew 28:19). He expected all believers to be baptized, and He promised salvation to those who believed and were baptized (Mark 16:16).

In Matthew 28:19-20, we have here a command of Christ to go and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them. However, it does not say here that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (immersed or condemned) then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John the Baptist, whom God sent to prepare the way of the Lord, preached and administered baptism for the remission of sins, and was the precursor for Acts 2:38 and, of which Paul is in agreement as per the OP.

In both cases, water baptism is for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance and not in order to obtain the remission of sins. I'm more concerned with being in agreement with the rest of scripture (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18 etc..) than I am with being in agreement with the OP.

 

[user]

Was this baptism that John preached for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or was it for "in regards to/on the basis of" the forgiveness of sins received upon repentance? It's the latter. Also, in Matthew 3:11, we read - I baptize you with water "for" repentance.. Was this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance? OR was this baptism for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Getting water baptized in order to obtain repentance makes no sense at all. Repentance "precedes" water baptism.

Once again,
in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

The apostle's sense is, repent (change your mind -- new direction of this change of mind -- faith in the name of Jesus) end result -- turn to God/be converted. In Acts 20:21, we read - testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. *Two sides to the same coin.

Faith in the name of Jesus is in context (vs. 16). Water baptism is not even mentioned in Acts 3:19 or in the entire chapter of Acts 3.

In regards to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (verse 4) and with "flesh" (verse 6). There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit.. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the Word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, divine life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the Word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23), but the Holy Spirit is the Agent who accomplishes the miracle of regeneration.

*So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.*

In Matthew 28:19-20, we have here a command of Christ to go and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them. However, it does not say here that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (immersed or condemned) then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In both cases, water baptism is for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance and not in order to obtain the remission of sins. I'm more concerned with being in agreement with the rest of scripture (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18 etc..) than I am with being in agreement with the OP.

Even though the English “for” has some elasticity, and thus may point to a precedent circumstance, such does not mean that the Greek preposition eis has similar properties. While it has a variety of meaning shades, it always is prospective (forward looking), and is never retrospective (backward looking) in its direction.

It is an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction. The preposition is used with the accusative case, meaning it points to the object of verbal action. Thus eis generally is translated by such terms as in, into, unto, to, toward, etc. It is a goal oriented term.

Theologically speaking, the construction of the compound verbs “repent and be baptized” connected with the prepositional phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” demonstrates that the sense of eis cannot possibly be that one is required to “repent” because of the forgiveness of his sins.

YOU are certainly free to subscribe to the idea that one repents of sin because his transgressions are forgiven already. But as for myself, I choose to believe scripture...


Colossians 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, [12] having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Romans 6:4 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. [5] 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.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

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

Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 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:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


God Bless!

 

[mailmandan]

Even though the English “for” has some elasticity, and thus may point to a precedent circumstance, such does not mean that the Greek preposition eis has similar properties. While it has a variety of meaning shades, it always is prospective (forward looking), and is never retrospective (backward looking) in its direction.

It is an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction. The preposition is used with the accusative case, meaning it points to the object of verbal action. Thus eis generally is translated by such terms as in, into, unto, to, toward, etc. It is a goal oriented term.

Theologically speaking, the construction of the compound verbs “repent and be baptized” connected with the prepositional phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” demonstrates that the sense of eis cannot possibly be that one is required to “repent” because of the forgiveness of his sins.

YOU are certainly free to subscribe to the idea that one repents of sin because his transgressions are forgiven already.

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. *These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

Now we can argue "he said/you said/they said" all day long, but what ULTIMATELY settles the issue for me is that *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* as I already showed you in post #21.

But as for myself, I choose to believe scripture...

You choose to believe your biased church doctrine. Let me know when you are ready to believe the gospel.

 

[mailmandan]

Colossians 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, [12] having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs "through faith." Christians are "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about "through faith" - and is properly symbolized by dipping the new believer in and out of the water.

Romans 6:4 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. [5] 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.

In Romans 6:4, the phrase "buried with Him through baptism" (on the surface) seems to support the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. However, even here baptism could be understood as the sign of justification. It's not unusual in Scripture to call the reality by the name of its sign. Thus, for example, Paul says that all Christians are circumcised (even though one may not be physically circumcised) - meaning that they possess what circumcision signifies (Philippians 3:3). Using this kind of language, Paul can speak of the great reality of the believers’ spiritual union with Christ, and the benefits which flow from that union, in terms of baptism, its sign. The reality however is found in Spirit baptism. A sign/symbol is not the reality, but is merely the picture of the reality.

You need to consider the context before making your interpretation. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that faith, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16, 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures. Righteousness is "imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification" (Romans 4:24,25).

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

See post #21.

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

Excellent article on Acts 22:16. - WHAT IS TRUTH: Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation? Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

1 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:

Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, only the wicked in Noah's dONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. We see that condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

When will you believe?

 

[user]

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. *These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

Now we can argue "he said/you said/they said" all day long, but what ULTIMATELY settles the issue for me is that *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* as I already showed you in post #21.

You choose to believe your biased church doctrine. Let me know when you are ready to believe the gospel.

Turning to these so called scholars for YOUR NEED to "strain at a gnat" while you are overlooking the obvious, is purely your choice. All scholars do not agree and you quote the ones that only agree with your view. Now as for myself, I choose to believe scripture...


Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

John's baptism was for the remission of sins, and the precursor for Acts 2:38.


God Bless!

 

[user]

Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs "through faith." Christians are "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about "through faith" - and is properly symbolized by dipping the new believer in and out of the water.

In Romans 6:4, the phrase "buried with Him through baptism" (on the surface) seems to support the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. However, even here baptism could be understood as the sign of justification. It's not unusual in Scripture to call the reality by the name of its sign. Thus, for example, Paul says that all Christians are circumcised (even though one may not be physically circumcised) - meaning that they possess what circumcision signifies (Philippians 3:3). Using this kind of language, Paul can speak of the great reality of the believers’ spiritual union with Christ, and the benefits which flow from that union, in terms of baptism, its sign. The reality however is found in Spirit baptism. A sign/symbol is not the reality, but is merely the picture of the reality.

You need to consider the context before making your interpretation. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that faith, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16, 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures. Righteousness is "imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification" (Romans 4:24,25).

See post #21.

Excellent article on Acts 22:16. - WHAT IS TRUTH: Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation? Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, only the wicked in Noah's dONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. We see that condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

When will you believe?

Just before Jesus ascended into heaven He commanded His disciples to go into all the world, to preach the gospel, to make disciples, and to baptize them. He expected all believers to be baptized, and He promised salvation to those who believed and were baptized.

God Bless!

 

[mailmandan]

Turning to these so called scholars for YOUR NEED to "strain at a gnat" while you are overlooking the obvious, is purely your choice. All scholars do not agree and you quote the ones that only agree with your view. Now as for myself, I choose to believe scripture...

As I previously stated, “you choose to believe your biased church doctrine” (based on your superficial reading of scripture and failing to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching a conclusion on doctrine). Again, we can argue "he said/you said/they said" all day long, but what ULTIMATELY settles the issue for me is that *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* as I already showed you in post #21.

 

[mailmandan]

Just before Jesus ascended into heaven He commanded His disciples to go into all the world, to preach the gospel, to make disciples, and to baptize them. He expected all believers to be baptized, and He promised salvation to those who believed and were baptized.

God Bless!

Yes, go into all the world and preach the gospel and baptize new converts. However, Jesus clarified that it’s the lack of belief that causes condemnation in Mark 16:16 and not the lack of baptism, as I already explained to you in post #24, but you have your agenda and your indoctrination runs deep. Who did Jesus promise salvation to in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26? BELIEVERS. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

 

[user]

Yes, go into all the world and preach the gospel and baptize new converts. However, Jesus clarified that it’s the lack of belief that causes condemnation in Mark 16:16 and not the lack of baptism, as I already explained to you in post #24, but you have your agenda and your indoctrination runs deep. Who did Jesus promise salvation to in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26? BELIEVERS. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

It is amazing you say the words "harmonize scripture" ... but you don't really do that.

For example: you said, "Who did Jesus promise salvation to in John 3:15 ... BELIEVERS. *What happened to baptism?"


Ok let's take a look at it...

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.


Now then, lets harmonize it...

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Yep ... there's the "baptism" you asked about.


John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Except a man be born of born or water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Romans 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death:..."


God Bless!

 

[mailmandan]

It is amazing you say the words "harmonize scripture" ... but you don't really do that.

For example: you said, "Who did Jesus promise salvation to in John 3:15 ... BELIEVERS. *What happened to baptism?"

Ok let's take a look at it...

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Now then, lets harmonize it...

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Yep ... there's the "baptism" you asked about.

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Except a man be born of born or water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Romans 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death:..."

God Bless!

No baptism mentioned in (John 3:15,16,28; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25). Hmm.. Did Jesus forget to mention it? I already previously explained your pet verses on baptism to you, but apparently, what I explained to you just went right over your head. You do not properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching your conclusion on doctrine, but instead, you isolate your pet versus, build doctrine on them and ignore the rest. You also try to force the rest of scripture to “conform” to your biased interpretation of your pet verses. That’s called flawed hermeneutics. You try to “patch together“ your so-called gospel plan.

 

[user]

No baptism mentioned in (John 3:15,16,28; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25). Hmm.. Did Jesus forget to mention it? I already previously explained your pet verses on baptism to you, but apparently, what I explained to you just went right over your head. You do not properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching your conclusion on doctrine, but instead, you isolate your pet versus, build doctrine on them and ignore the rest. You also try to force the rest of scripture to “conform” to your biased interpretation of your pet verses. That’s called flawed hermeneutics. You try to “patch together“ your so-called gospel plan.

Are you still without understanding. How do you claim to be so wise and missed this very simple observation.

Let's recall that scripture...

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

I then harmonized it with:
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Perhaps your ignorance was stuck full throttle. So let's use another example of "harmonizing scripture", using events of Jesus' betrayal in the garden...

Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
Mat 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
Mat 26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.
Mat 26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

OK verse 51 states the ear of the servant was cut off.
Now let's read the account in John...

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

John reveals Peter was the one that smote the servant, and the servant's name was Malchus!
Your lack of understanding that Some Scripture gives MORE details is simply amazing.

God Bless!

 

[mailmandan]

Are you still without understanding. How do you claim to be so wise and missed this very simple observation..

Perhaps your ignorance was stuck full throttle..

Your lack of understanding that Some Scripture gives MORE details is simply amazing.

You are the master of irony. It’s painfully obvious that you are incapable of properly harmonizing scripture with scripture and are thoroughly indoctrinated and unteachable.

Good day sir.

 

[marks]

FALSE. It only looks that way superficially. Repentance is for the remission of sins, as Christ plainly stated. And water baptism follows. That is where the believer is metaphorically and spiritually buried with Him by baptism into death.

There is one baptism, and that is into Christ.

Simple and straightforward.

Much love!

 

[Enoch111]

There is one baptism, and that is into Christ.

I did not expect false doctrine from you. But there it is.

There are THREE Christian baptisms:
1. The baptism WITH the Holy Spirit (Christ is the Baptizer)
2. The baptism BY the Holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer)
3. Water baptism by immersion -- a commandment of Christ.

 

[marks]

I did not expect false doctrine from you. But there it is.

There are THREE Christian baptisms:
1. The baptism WITH the Holy Spirit (Christ is the Baptizer)
2. The baptism BY the Holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer)
3. Water baptism by immersion -- a commandment of Christ.

Ephesians 4
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Your thoughts?

Much love!

 

[Enoch111]

Ephesians 4
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Your thoughts?

CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.

"One faith" leads to the one baptism WITH the Holy Spirit (Christ is the Baptizer, as John the Baptist announced -- see Titus 3). But Paul says that there is a "doctrine of baptisms (plural) which you missed.

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit. (Hebrews 6:1-3).

 

[marks]

CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.

"One faith" leads to the one baptism WITH the Holy Spirit (Christ is the Baptizer, as John the Baptist announced -- see Titus 3). But Paul says that there is a "doctrine of baptisms (plural) which you missed.

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit. (Hebrews 6:1-3).

Why make an assumption that I've missed something? Are you making other assumptions about my thinking?

The author of Hebrews mentions "the doctrine of baptisms", do they specify which baptisms they are referencing? And whether these are meant to be practiced by Christians? Were they speaking of earlier baptisms? Where is the place that clarifies? What else does Hebrews say about baptism(s)?

And why write there is one baptism if that's not true?

What was the purpose of water baptism, and why did Paul say he was not sent to baptize?

And why would Paul write that he received his teaching from others, and not directly from Jesus as he asserts elsewhere (OK, not that question, that's not this thread)?

We are baptised into Christ. What else remains?

Much love!

 

[mailmandan]

Even though there are multiple baptisms mentioned in scripture, there is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is Spirit baptism, not water baptism.

Ephesians 4:5 - One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[Enoch111]

What was the purpose of water baptism, and why did Paul say he was not sent to baptize?

This is called QUIBBLING my friend, and you are quibbling over the Word of God.

1. Paul said he was not sent to baptize, because his primary ministry was the preaching of the Gospel.

2. At the same time, and in the same context, Paul did say that others baptized alongside his preaching.

3. Paul himself was baptized by Ananias immediately after his conversion, at the commandment of the Lord.

4. Paul and Silas baptized the household of the Philippian jailer AT MIDNIGHT, which confirms that Paul believed wholeheartedly in the importance of Christian baptism immediately after conversion.

5. That passage in Ephesians is definitely NOT contradicting water baptism, since it is a reference to Spirit baptism (which comes first).

6. There are many reasons or purposes for water baptism, which is a subject in itself.

Now do wish wish to continue arguing or are you prepared to say that you made an egregious blunder to start with?

 

[Enoch111]

Even though there are multiple baptisms mentioned in scripture, there is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is Spirit baptism, not water baptism.

Except that Marks wanted to exclude water baptism altogether. That is what the Hyper-Dispensationalists do.