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.
.