Posted on 03/17/2024 11:14:52 AM PDT by Morgana
**...wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Works for me.**
(So, what works for you is omitting the first half of the verse?)
**Romans 10:13-15 New International Version....
Nothing about getting wet here.**
Let’s see, yes, there are chapters before chapter 10 in Romans.
“To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...” (Rom. 1:7)
And how DID these folk become beloved of God, called to be saints?....
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism unto death:...” Rom. 6:3,(and 1st part of verse 4)
That’s not Holy Spirit baptism. Because the likeness of that is mentioned here....
“...that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (rest of verse 4)
And how did that conversion happen?...
“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Rom. 6:17,18
And indeed, Paul confirms he’s writing to Spirit-filled souls....
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Rom. 8:9
There are preachers preaching, but many are not preachers sent by God. I liken them to David’s messenger Ahimaaz, who ran without the most desired part of the message David wanted to hear (2 Sam. 18:19-32).
God doesn’t leave out the details of conversion (for those that don’t know them). If they already know them, (as did the churches that the epistles were written to), they don’t need to be told the details again. Although those details are alluded to from time to time, as Romans testifies.
In my first 28 years (while attending a Calvinist church) I simply can’t recall Acts 2:38 ever being quoted by the minister. Maybe they are taught at seminary to avoid it.
**If you are NOT saved without it, I think that Christ would have told Paul to do it**
Paul wasn’t sent in a John the baptist fashion, who came before the death, burial, and resurrection message existed. (That or Paul diobeyed God by baptizing at least 4 in Corinth, and others elsewhere.)
Paul had his ordained ministers, Silas and Timotheus, to assist him at Corinth (Acts 18:5).
Some saints at Corinth would seem to have gotten carnal with bragging about who baptized them, which is unfortunate, making the rebuke necessary.
What kind of illogical reasoning is this? You have previously unregenerate men whose heart was purified by faith (Acts 15:9) BEFORE being baptized, who then are not baptized as being regenerate souls but also told to "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20)
Thus by your perverse reasoning (baptism being commanded of believers means this is essential for remission of sins), these souls must also obey other commands in order to receive remission of sins!
Why can you not just admit that these previously lost souls (Acts 11:14) already had their hearts "purified by faith" BEFORE baptism, realizing by the heart "washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Titus 3:5) but that obedience thru the Spirit is what regeneration effects? (Rm. 8:14)
Instead, you are compelling an effect of regeneration as being necessary for that. Likewise, since Jesus told the palsied man whom He had forgiven and healed "Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house," (Mark 2:11) - which was to so that others "may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," (v. 10)
We are supposed to be willing to follow the Truth wherever it leads, versus compelling the word of God to conform to a denomination doctrine.
Peter confirms it in 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:” 1. Peter says water baptism saves.
Which (1Pt. 1:21) is by the same apostle who preached
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) "And 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)
- before baptism.
Which would mean that if Peter is now teaching in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism is the means of regeneration then he is contradicting his own preaching and testimony. Instead, your presumption is an example of not recognizing the sense in which baptism saves.
Which indeed it does, consistent with the three senses of salvation (Present: Jn. Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 5:23; Continued: Hebrews 3:6; Full-fillment: Revelation 21:1-7; 22:4) in which being reconciled to God by heart-purifying, regenerating faith as Cornelius and household exampled, yet while once "we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." (Romans 5:10)
Which is the context of 1 Pt. 3:21:
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)
Consistent with,
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." (Colossians 3:1-2)
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. (1 Peter 4:1-2)At conversion, Cornelius and company, as with all believers, were "washed" by heart-purifying faith, regenerated, "sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11) Thus such are risen with Christ to "walk in newness of life" and which the baptism of Cornelius and believers signifies (Romans 6:4) but will only be finally saved by the same effectual faith .
Thus Peter exhorts those who were already presently saved believers:
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (2 Peter 1:10)
Peter is not referring to being forgiven, and born of the Spirit, and present salvation, but of future realization of this by continuing in that faith. For ,
For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; (Hebrews 3:14)
In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39)
Rather than a ritual effecting regeneration, baptism signifies what this means, and saves in the sense of walking consistent with it. Meaning identifying with the Lord Jesus in His crucifixion and resurrection which baptism declares. To act contrary to that is a denial of faith.
And in anyone thinks a ritual is meaningless, then they need to read 1 Co. 11:27-32 and see what happened to hypocritical partakers.
Just as effectual remembering the Lord's death means declaring it by manifesting union with Christ and each other by taking part in a closed-communal meal with others who are bought by His sinless shed blood - and to act contrary to this it is not actually "remember" His death and suffer chastisement, (1 Co. 11:17-32) so also, we shall be saved by his life, by His resurrection power walking in faith.
2. He says it isn’t a bath, but it gives the obedient a good conscience toward God.
Actually the word for answer in "of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus" is eperōtēma and denotes "demand," "desire," which is actually saying in order to obtain salvation, but is consistent with obedience by the Spirit being a fruit of conversion, thus I myself was properly baptized a few years after manifestly becoming born again (while still a RC) and later left Rome for a baptist church.
3. Why? Because the resurrection of Jesus Christ is confirmation that his commands are to be followed. And an important one is Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And which is wholly consistent with what I said, that since faith effects obedience, which baptism is normally the formal expression of, and it both requires and manifests faith, then sometimes the terms can be used interchangeably. Meaning a command to be baptized is a command to believe, and since those who act according to faith manifest that they are believers, then the promise of the Spirit can be given to them. Acts in Acts 2:38, but which Acts 10:36-47, 15:7-9 interprets, showing what actually results in regeneration.
Back to Cornelius and company, and all OT believers who did not literally pass thru the Red Sea, and multitudes of believers such as in the Great Awakenings in the past, then if baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins and regeneration, then you must consigned all to being unregenerate souls who were still in their sins until and unless they were baptized.
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands his disciples to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Seeing he commands teaching all nations and specifically commands baptizing them, indicates to me that it MUST be done. Mark 16:16 obviously harmonizes with that. And in Luke 24:47, Jesus commanded repentance and remission of sins be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem. Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 was as the Lord Jesus instructed.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the coverts in Antioch were baptized per the Lord’s command. Just as Peter had no choice with Cornelius and his household. They HAD to be baptized. More on Acts 10...
It was a supernatural effort by the Lord (vision x3, and telling Peter that he was sending men to fetch him) to get Peter to go to the Gentiles. Those “of the circumcision which believed”, that went with him, hadn’t received any signs from God. Therefore, I believe those fellows would have protested baptizing Gentiles. But God pouring out his Spirit confirmed to those Jews that the Gentiles were included in this grace. Therefore, the command by Peter to baptize them.
Is water baptism mentioned in Acts 15? No. The argument was about circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
Paul showed up at Ephesus, (Acts 19:1-7), and after discovering that 12 disciples of John the baptist hadn’t received the Holy Ghost, he re-baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Paul testified to the Jews of his conversion, specifically mentioning Ananias’ command for him to be baptized: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16
Philip knew that souls had to believe AND be baptized (Mark 16:16), as seen in Samaria (Acts 8:12,13), and the eunuch’s conversion (Acts 8:35-39).
The passover in Egypt is clearly a type of Christ. And the way of departure by the Israelites was also God ordained, showing a type of the church (Acts 7:38): they turned to follow God (repentance), and were ALL baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1Cor. 10:1,2).
We can see that Joseph was a type of Christ: sent to his brethren, was hated by them, cast into a pit to die (but was not Christ, so he couldn’t die and still fulfill God plan). It’s interesting that the pit is mentioned as not having water in it at that time (Gen. 37:24. Otherwise Joseph would have drowned)
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, as well as all after that who believed as Cornelius and company until they were baptized - despite the Holy Spirit clearly testifying that God had already purified their heart by faith BEFORE baptist.
Moreover, as expressed and ignored, based upon your reasoning since the Lord Jesus commanded baptism then that is essential for the remission of sins, then it follows that since the Lord likewise commanded "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," (Matthew 28:20) then all such is necessary for the remission of sins. Instead, what is essential in effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God and Lord of all, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39) Glory and thanks be to God.
Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 was as the Lord Jesus instructed.
Instead, as was Peter command to "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," but as He so often expressed, it is effectual faith that obtains promises and forgiveness.
And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. (Luke 7:48-50)
And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. (Luke 18:42)
And which faith is first to be formally shown in baptism, and which signifies faith. And since thus, as expressed, to effectually believe means to obey, and to obey evidences faith (all that we do manifests what we truly believe, at least at the moment), then Peter's command in Acts 2:38 3,000 convicted souls in desperate quest for salvation was not to repeat a prayer, but to express faith in body language, but actually doing what signifies faith.
Which is consistent with,
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 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. (Romans 10:8-10) True faith in the heart justifies, and such faith is confirmed as salvific by obedience, which confession is in word and in deed. Thus at any point, what is necessary is effectual faith, which is what born again Cornelius and his household had and thus were baptized. testifying to this faith, as cause and effect.
Like as with forgiveness and healing, as shown,
Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee [cause]; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk [effect]? (Mark 2:9)
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the coverts in Antioch were baptized per the Lord’s command. Just as Peter had no choice with Cornelius and his household. They HAD to be baptized. More on Acts 10.
More sophistry, for Peter certainly did not have to command Cornelius and his household to be baptized for the remission of sins, since they ALREADY had realized this, as is plainly shown. As for Peter had no choice, Peter had no choice but to obey all the Lord's commands, which includes baptism, but which is NOT what Peter preached in order to receive remission of sins, which instead was,
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
Thus it remains that you are contradicting the clear testimony of Peter, that prior to baptism, God gave these souls the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto the apostles; purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9) Thus it is FAITH that obtains remission of sins, and it is FAITH that is imputed for righteousness
Instead of admitting this, you resort to another failing rebuttal:
It was a supernatural effort by the Lord (vision x3, and telling Peter that he was sending men to fetch him) to get Peter to go to the Gentiles. Those “of the circumcision which believed”, that went with him, hadn’t received any signs from God. Therefore, I believe those fellows would have protested baptizing Gentiles. But God pouring out his Spirit confirmed to those Jews that the Gentiles were included in this grace. Therefore, the command by Peter to baptize them.
Think about what you are arguing: Which is that God pouring out his Spirit confirmed to those Jews - and you - that the Gentiles received the "washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5) before baptism, "purifying their hearts by faith," contrary to your major premise!
Thus your only recourse is to an exception clause which still contradicts you.
Is water baptism mentioned in Acts 15? No. The argument was about circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
Yes, yet Peter's testimony was that "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And 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 15:7-9)
Paul showed up at Ephesus, (Acts 19:1-7), and after discovering that 12 disciples of John the baptist hadn’t received the Holy Ghost, he re-baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Yes, as they should be, as this is synonymous with believing. But it is the faith behind and expressed in baptism that purifies the heart.
Paul testified to the Jews of his conversion, specifically mentioning Ananias’ command for him to be baptized: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16Yes indeed, which is consistent with believing, and is actually normatively to be synonymous with conversion, presuming the convert understands what it means, and water and means to do so is available at the time.
Philip knew that souls had to believe AND be baptized (Mark 16:16), as seen in Samaria (Acts 8:12, 13), and the eunuch’s conversion (Acts 8:35-39).
Which has never been the issue here, versus baptism being the means of or essential for the remission of sins.
The passover in Egypt is clearly a type of Christ. And the way of departure by the Israelites was also God ordained, showing a type of the church (Acts 7:38): they turned to follow God (repentance), and were ALL baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1Cor. 10:1, 2).
You already tried this, remember? Only the original Hebrews of the Exodus went thru the sea, not those born after that, nor Abraham or those before it.
I am glad if you are believer, and baptism is wrongly marginalized (and I have not emphasized as much as it should be), but you are almost making a god out of baptism.
That said, this takes up hours of my time with my stiff arthritic typo-fingers, and I have more to do.
.
**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.
You make condescending comments (like some of the ones below in asterisks), and believe you have proved your case, therefore you choose to end this debate. That’s fine (I’m a pretty patient and longsuffering guy), but I am going to TRY to briefly answer some of that post. Afterward, I will possibly post to myself on this thread, on this issue (but not using any of your wording), since I am aware that other viewers are maybe still lurking.
**This is more desperation**
So you don’t believe the miracle of the palsied man to have any symbolism of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which the new birth shows as a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection (which happens while the convert is alive in the flesh, responding according to the preacher sent by God).
**Yet you persist with the lie that baptism was commanded for - in order to obtain remission of sins,**
Jesus declared to the disciples that THEY would be remitting sins. Therefore, whosoever sins they remit are surely remitted in heaven. Peter said, when speaking of Noah and the flood, “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:” 1 Peter 3:21
What gives the good conscience? Knowing your sins are washed away, from obeying “from the heart that form of doctrine” one receives from God-ordained ministers; not doing it insincerely, (yet foolish people do so). And by doing so, “being then made free from sin...” Who gave us that doctrine? Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, and sent men out to institute it. (quote clips from Rom. 6:17,18)
**What?! Men whose heart was already purified by faith, who were already regenerated BEFORE baptism,**
The last half of that sentence is your opinion. The testimony from Peter you refer to was made some time after those Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost and had been water “baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:47,48). So yes, they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered to them. Do you think Peter didn’t explain to Cornelius and household WHY they were being baptized? I’m rather confident he didn’t say this....
**Baptism as commanded as act signifying faith and confirmatory of and normally concomitant with it**
Chapter and verse please (if you reply).
**Wrong: By counting his faith for righteousness then God was truly commending for his faith:**
And Abraham’s faith was based on his obedience (Heb. 11:8). He had to leave Haran in order to receive those promises.
Hebrews 11:1,2 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders received a good report.”
Neither you or I can see the ‘heart’. It’s honestly meeting the requirements (whatever they may be) to receive those things hoped for, that is the evidence of faith in the unseen God.
**...the incarnated physicality of Christ (versus mere appearance) which the water of birth testifies to...**
That’s private interpretation. John says nothing about water when comparing physical birth with spiritual in John 1:13. Also, to make that case, it would help offset John 1:13 if Jesus had said in 3:6 that “That which is born of water is flesh...”, but he didn’t.
I close with Jonah, the type and shadow of death, burial, and resurrection mentioned by Jesus.
Jonah was a sinner who had rebelled against God. He knew he had sinned, admitted his guilty condition, and men threw him into the sea (you don’t bury or baptize yourself). In his watery grave (kept alive by the whale), his sin was forgiven, and he was released from that prison a new man, ready to do the will of God with vigor (Yes, he still had a chip on his shoulder about the Ninevites, but God opened his eyes to that wrong thinking.)
How are such not warranted in the light of your utter refusal to admit what is plainly shown to you, and even blatant contradicting the manifest fact that Cornelius and household were indeed forgiven and regenerated, realizing the washing of regeneration, having their heart already purified by faith, "who were already regenerated BEFORE baptism," yet which you assert:
The last half of that sentence is your opinion. The testimony from Peter you refer to was made some time after those Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost and had been water “baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:47, 48).
Which is NOT my opinion since The testimony from Peter was NOT made some time after those Gentiles had been water “baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:47, 48), but before they were, referring to the event that already occurred, as the very verses you reference plainly state:
Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Peter is clearly referring to an event which ALREADY took place:
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:44-48)
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. (Acts 11:15)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And 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 15:7-9)Therefore you are blatantly changing what Peter said, which is typical of cults, in which Scripture must be compelled to support their distinctive errors. As in the next example as well:
And Abraham’s faith was based on his obedience (Heb. 11:8). He had to leave Haran in order to receive those promises.
Meaning that he had to truly believe, which is what and why he was accounted as righteous, and this as said, you are not to confuse the cause with the effect.
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6)
Neither you or I can see the ‘heart’. It’s honestly meeting the requirements (whatever they may be) to receive those things hoped for, that is the evidence of faith in the unseen God.
What confusion. It does not matter that neither you or I can see the heart in regard to what God does, for since He does, "God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost. Stop confusing the effect of faith with being the actual cause of justification.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
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)
As regards the Law, that represents all systems of justification on the basis of the merit of works:
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (Galatians 3:21)
So you don’t believe the miracle of the palsied man to have any symbolism of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which the new birth shows as a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection (which happens while the convert is alive in the flesh, responding according to the preacher sent by God).
Being let down into the house as analogous to baptism obtaining forgiveness by proxy faith could be used by Catholics to support infant baptismal regeneration by proxy faith, but i see it as relating to James 5:14-15, the requirement for baptism is that of whole-hearted repentant faith. (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37).
In response to the faith of intercessors, the Lord has mercy on the man, forgiving as in removing his chastisement akin to James 5:14-15, likely for a sin of ignorance (since no confession was required), and the man was forgiven, and thus healed and walked, which is the only response by the man. He did not walk in order to be healed, but forgiven, healed and thus walked, and analogous with faith being the cause of obedience, which cause is not to be confused with the effect. "God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost as well as unto us."
Jesus declared to the disciples that THEY would be remitting sins.
Or retained. (Jn. 20:23) Which has application in the judicial context, as in Matthew 18:15-18 (cf. Dt. 17:8-13) as with civil powers, (Rm. 13:1-7) while spiritual loosing can be by believers in general in union and agreement with God and each other. (Matthew 18:19,20; cf. James 5:16) The relationship btwn forgiveness, chastisement even for sins of ignorance, and intercession by others is intriguing. See Confession of sins to Catholic priests as I incompletely see it.
What gives the good conscience? Knowing
Knowing you believed on the Lord, with obedience faith, which faith is what is imputed for righteousness, not the act itself. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received [already] the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) "purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9) But as said, the two normally go together, as do faith and works.
Jonah was a sinner who had rebelled against God. He knew he had sinned, admitted his guilty condition, and men threw him into the sea (you don’t bury or baptize yourself). In his watery grave (kept alive by the whale), his sin was forgiven
Which would support forced baptism. As you sure you are not a RC? If you are going to keep trying to make baptism essential for the forgiveness of sins by searching for every form of being let down or immersed in water than you need to be consistent. God forgave souls without being immersed or physically let down, while here it was the chastisement of Jonah being inside the belly of a big fish that wrought repentance, and thus forgiveness.
In closing, while baptism has come to be wrongly marginalized, you are wrong in making a ritual the means of regeneration, confusing the cause of justification, which is the faith which baptism is to confess, with being the means of it (though as said, sometimes is can be the occasion of it, in which a persons transit from head faith to the heart due to what baptism represents).
A false balance at best, while denying souls who believed Acts 10:43 were forgiven and regenerated before baptism is inexcusable, and some of your belief even dam souls who did believe and were baptized since they did not believe baptismal regeneration, which is a false gospel. May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Bye.
Cults are gonna cult; it’s what they do.
Baptising and/or praying for the dead is hooey. THEY’RE DEAD and currently are dealing with the decisions they made, or didn’t make, in life.
Almost 47 years ago, when devaluing or denying the salvation requirement of water baptism, I began using those same arguments used by many, against Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 adherents (the seriousness of the debate increased as two of my brothers became believers in that conversion). Not being as educated in the scriptures as others in the Presbyterian church I attended, I was given those same talking points by members in my church, and also given literature written by ‘doctors of theology’.
I became well versed in the stand taken by both sides of water baptism. But the denying of the gift of the Holy Ghost being confirmed by the receiver speaking in tongues was finally the hill the Calvinists couldn’t climb for me; them saying “it hasn’t happened since the apostles died” (or similar words). Jesus’ words in John 3:8 destroys that lie.
People (who obviously have never spoken in tongues given by God) use 1 Cor. 13:8-13 to unwittingly counter Jesus Christ’s own words of how Spirit infilling is confirmed. They do the same with other scriptures when water baptism is the topic. (I know, because I used to do the same).
Has knowledge ceased? No. Has that which is perfect come yet? Jesus is perfect and has perfect knowledge. He hasn’t come yet. Do each of us know even as we are known? Don’t think so.
Faith, hope, and love are to constantly present in the child of God, 24/7/365, year after year. That’s the theme of 1 Cor. 13.
Cornelius was a very faithful man BEFORE the angel of God spoke to him. But Jesus Christ had died, been buried, had risen again, and had issued orders to his disciples to preach his message (they needing the rebirth first). The new covenant was in effect. Cornelius needed to be born again. When giving Cornelius instructions, the last thing the angel told him was, Simon (Peter) “shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.” (Acts 10:6). And guess what, that included obeying being baptized in water in the name of the Lord.
Cornelius needed to hear hear and heed all of the instructions of Peter. The man sent of God gives the witness of AND instructions of Jesus Christ for conversion. Jesus gives the Holy Ghost. The man sent of God is given the power to remit or not to remit sins (John 20:23). This is what Peter could not have withheld (Acts 11:17) from Cornelius and his household, for he knew he would be withstanding God’s command for for water baptism, which is where Peter’s role of remitting sins lay.
The new birth is despised by the devil, hence his efforts to interfere with ANYONE (either messenger or recipient) in the remission of sins assignment. The devil cannot stop Jesus Christ from giving the Holy Ghost.
The church of the lying prophet Joey Smith is built on the sand of lies. That includes their baptism for the dead doctrine.
The house built on the sand? The Presbyterian church I attended those many years ago is sinking in it even now, and has been for a long time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.