**Which utterly fails to establish the contention at hand, that baptism is essential for the washing of regeneration, “that water baptism in the name of Jesus was for the remission of sins” as you persist in trying to justify, thus damning Abraham himself and all OT souls that did not pass thru the Red Sea,**
The Passover in Egypt (widely accepted as a type and shadow Jesus Christ’s sacrifice) had never happened before. It broke the hopeless case of a people in bondage. But they had to leave that world of sin and come to God... his way. In 1 Cor. 10:1,2 Paul shows the subsequent departure from Egypt to be a type and shadow of the church (baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; which is where Israel passed through in order to be completely free from Egypt).
Stephen referred to Moses (a type of Christ), and the Israelites, as the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:37,38).
Our souls live in physical bodies in a physical world. Physical action proves faith, even if it’s a man secured to a cross asking Jesus for forgiveness. (Jesus had not died and rose again, therefore the new covenant was not yet in effect.) Hebrews 11 shows examples of faith, and every one of those heros had to do something physical to prove their faith.
Men tore open a roof to lower their crippled friend in hopes that Jesus would heal him. “When Jesus SAW their faith...” (Mark 2:5), we can note his not commending their faith until that point.
That miracle is also a great shadow of rebirth: The man was ‘buried’ by being lowered into the house. Who was down there? Jesus (we are buried with him in baptism). The man was forgiven of sins at that point, and received healing (walking in newness of life: his ‘resurrection).
Likewise with the centurion who made an effort to contact Jesus in hopes his servant could be healed. After Jesus makes his way toward the centurion’s home, and hears the message of his not needing to come into the house, Jesus announces that the man has greater faith than anyone in Israel.
Also the woman that poured ointment on Jesus feet was commended of her faith after the fact.
Abraham? When was he finally commended for his faith? Not at his departure point of Haran. No, it was after traveling several hundred miles (the old fashioned way), also building three altars and offering sacrifices on them. In Gen. 15, we read of the LORD telling Abram to look up to heaven and count stars. Do you think Abram didn’t so much as look? Then, in verse 6, God commends him for his faith.
And the (almost) sacrifice of Isaac, where Abram is stopped at the point of grabbing his knife, and the LORD then says “...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” (Gen. 22:12)
Cornelius was commended for his faith (prayers and alms) before being instructed to send for Peter, who upon arriving, knows that Cornelius has surely heard of Jesus (Acts 10:37,38). Since they were promptly baptized immediately after receiving the Holy Ghost, it shows that as Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, John 20:23, and Acts 2:38 all indicate water baptism to be part of the water and Spirit rebirth (John 3:5); that saving faith requires repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus. God gives the Holy Ghost.
It is simply a fact that it wasn’t until AFTER Jesus died and rose again that water baptism was commanded for remission of sins.
Otherwise, why all the examples of its urgency in Acts? And why the wording by Paul: “buried with him in baptism”? Simple. If you are ‘buried with him’, his blood is there too.
If it is for remission of sins, but denied to be so by many, then isn’t that (at minimum) a lack of faith?
Which spiritualization of baptism contradicts your contention at hand, that baptism is essential for the washing of regeneration, “that water baptism in the name of Jesus was for the remission of sins.” Again, why not just admit that the clear testimony of Peter is that of hearts being purified by faith before any immersion, only the abasement of heart in faith?!
. Physical action proves faith,
Exactly, it manifests the faith that is in the heart, when with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, (Romans 10:10) and which reality is confirmed by confession. But action is that of any response, including with the mouth, while baptism is one of that in body language. And it remains that Cornelius and company evidence the washing of regeneration BEFORE baptism. Before any immersion. Which is your problem.
Men tore open a roof to lower their crippled friend in hopes that Jesus would heal him. “When Jesus SAW their faith...” (Mark 2:5),...That miracle is also a great shadow of rebirth: The man was ‘buried’ by being lowered into the house. Who was down there? Jesus (we are buried with him in baptism). The man was forgiven of sins at that point, and received healing
This is more desperation, and yet if you are going to allow that some sort of going down signifies baptism then any manner of incline might suffice. Yet even in the flood there was no going down, but getting into the ark to stay above the water, which ark is Christ, which saves by His life, and not only His death, as explained.
even if it’s a man secured to a cross asking Jesus for forgiveness. (Jesus had not died and rose again, therefore the new covenant was not yet in effect.)
Which is consistent with the heart being purifies by faith, believing unto righteousness before baptism, and contradicts your attempt to make the man being ‘buried’ by being lowered into the house into other to obtain forgiveness. Your utterly fails to establish the contention at hand, that baptism is essential for the washing of regeneration, “that water baptism in the name of Jesus was for the remission of sins.”
After Jesus makes his way toward the centurion’s home, and hears the message of his not needing to come into the house, Jesus announces that the man has greater faith than anyone in Israel.
Yes, the heart being purified by repentant faith, believing unto righteousness, and confirmed by confession. Abraham? When was he finally commended for his faith? Not at his departure point of Haran. No, it was after traveling several hundred miles (the old fashioned way), also building three altars and offering sacrifices on them.
Wrong: By counting his faith for righteousness then God was truly commending for his faith:
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (Romans 4:19-22; cf. Gn. 15:6)
Imagining that Abraham was not counted as righteous until about 25-30 years after he believed this promise is absurd.
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Romans 4:2-3)
However, consistent with heart-purifying, regenerating justifying faith in the heart being confirmed as salvific by manifest obedience, then his offering of Issac was a profound confirmation, a "full-fillment," of what God had already declared. (cf. James 2:23)
Cornelius was commended for his faith (prayers and alms) before being instructed to send for Peter, who upon arriving, knows that Cornelius has surely heard of Jesus (Acts 10:37, 38). Since they were promptly baptized immediately after receiving the Holy Ghost, it shows that as Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, John 20:23, and Acts 2:38 all indicate water baptism to be part of the water and Spirit rebirth (John 3:5);
What?! Men whose heart was already purified by faith, who were already regenerated BEFORE baptism, indicate water baptism to be part of the water and Spirit rebirth (John 3:5)?! How can water baptism to be part of something that already occurred. Only as testimony confirmatory of what had already occurred!
And in context, John 3:5 differentiates btwn two kinds of birth, as the Lord next states,
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)
Which flows from the context of Nicodemus asking about physical birth, but being ignorant of Spiritual birth. And of John who repeatedly contrasts the physical and earthly, from the Spiritual and Heavenly, and emphasizes the incarnated physicality of Christ (versus mere appearance) which the water of birth testifies to, and of His literal death, the blood, and resurrection by the Spirit.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:8)
It is simply a fact that it wasn’t until AFTER Jesus died and rose again that water baptism was commanded for remission of sins.
Meaning you have Abraham being justified by faith before baptism, being set forth as the example of faith being imputed for righteousness (Rom. 4) and not due to "works of righteousness which we have done," (Titus 3:5) and with clear statement that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) And that "God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.'' (Acts 15:8-9)
Yet you persist with the lie that baptism was commanded for - in order to obtain remission of sins, versus as a promise of regeneration by effectually repentant faith, (Acts 2:28) consistent Peter's later message.
Otherwise, why all the examples of its urgency in Acts?
What urgency? Baptism as commanded as act signifying faith and confirmatory of and normally concomitant with it. To believe is to obey, beginning with confession of Jesus as the risen Lord. Which is expressed both by word and in deed as believers.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Romans 10:9-11) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)
Since obedience baptism requires and examples faith, thus souls are promised that if they do repent and are baptized then they shall receive the Spirit. (Acts 2:28) Your doctrine makes Peter misleading souls in Acts 10, or falsely insisting that baptism was essential for regeneration, while my explanation is is consistent with faith being what is counted for righteousness, as the cause behind the effect. With effectual faith(as the cause) precisely being what justifies, being imputed for righteousness, and confirmed by obedience (the effect)
And why the wording by Paul: “buried with him in baptism”? Simple. If you are ‘buried with him’, his blood is there too..
"Why?" Because as with other symbolism, baptism is referred to as due to what it represents. And as explained, to properly take part in the Lord's supper is to shew the Lord’s death (by showing the union with Christ and believers purchased by His death via a close-communion meal, as being "one loaf") till He come. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [declare, proclaim] the Lord’s death till he come. "(1 Corinthians 11:26)
Thus, to selfishly indulge oneself and ignore others was to not "come together not for the better, but for the worse....When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper." (1 Corinthians 11:17,20)
To be baptized is to identify oneself with the Lord in His death and resurrection, and therefore the same are to live accordingly. Paul thus explains this in Rm. 6. When you put that ring on your bride in marriage you signified the intended union, so treat each other as being of one body. (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:4)
If it is for remission of sins, but denied to be so by many, then isn’t that (at minimum) a lack of faith? No, since it is not the act of baptism that procures remission of sins today any more than it was in Acts 10, it is actually faith in baptism that more people are damned with, versus those who believe and are baptized in confessing the Lord.
But the marginalization of baptism is more due to ignorance, and superficial faith, as well as a over reaction to Catholicism. In which it is imagined that the act itself effects regeneration, even by proxy faith, without repentant faith by the subject of it.
Presuming you do not belief this, but that conversion is by faith which is made manifest in baptism, then thus I can surmise that you are redeemed, but with our contention is whether one can be forgiven and born again prior to baptism - which Scripture indisputably affirms - without marginalization of it.
However, if you imagine that all those who believe the gospel as Peter preached it in Acts 10:36-43 and were baptized are not saved since they didnot believe that the act of baptism itself is required for forgiveness and regeneration, then you are preaching a different gospel. (Gal. 1:8)
And with that, then I think this disputation needs to end.