Washed and clothed in Christ: The beauty of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism

[LoveofTruth]

Acts 22:14-16 is about Christian Baptism.

I understand that the Jewish believers. Still practiced Johns water baptism wity sleight variations long after Christ rise again. And even in the previous chapter we see this wity thousands of Jews that believer in Jesus zealous of the law and customs abd even doing animal sacrifices for a time.

But the Gentiles were not to be brought under this and then come out later as the Jews were suppose to in the time of reformations

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I understand that the Jewish believers. Still practiced Johns water baptism wity sleight variations long after Christ rise again. And even in the previous chapter we see this wity thousands of Jews that believer in Jesus zealous of the law and customs abd even doing animal sacrifices for a time.

But the Gentiles were not to be brought under this and then come out later as the Jews were suppose to in the time of reformations

Acts 22:12-13 makes it clear that Ananias was sent to baptise Saul (Paul) with Christian baptism, not the baptism of saint John the Baptist. Acts 22:14-16 teach that baptism washes away sins, of course, baptism's power to wash away sins comes from the shed blood of Christ which the water of baptism sacramentally applies.

 

[Danthemailman]

Acts 22:14-16 is about Christian Baptism.

In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism. (Acts 10:43-47) In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (vs 15), although the apostle had not yet been water baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear His name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15) and such a commission is not for one who is still lost in their sins. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO.

So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was BEFORE he was water baptized. (Acts 9:18) Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism.

*Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - WHAT IS TRUTH: Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?

Acts 22:16 does not establish baptismal regeneration. The verse itself demonstrates that the “washing away” of sins in baptism mentioned is representative and figurative, not literal.

*It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was still lost in his sins.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism.

The passage reads thus:

Then Peter began to speak to them: 'I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ--he is Lord of all. That message spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. We are witnesses to all that he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear, not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.' (Acts 10:34-43 NRSV-CE)​

This passage isn't about baptism so I would not expect baptism to be mentioned. The passage is about belief and so believing is mentioned. This is as it should be. Believing is not exclusive of baptism nor is baptism exclusive of belief, the one who is to be baptised is brought to baptism in faith, and faith is believing the Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (vs 15), although the apostle had not yet been water baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear His name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15) and such a commission is not for one who is still lost in their sins. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO.

Acts 9:1-18 tells the story of Saul's conversion, his encounter with the Lord on the road, his blindless, his healing and baptism. In short, his conversion is a process that ends with baptism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism. (Acts 10:43-47) In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (vs 15), although the apostle had not yet been water baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear His name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15) and such a commission is not for one who is still lost in their sins. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO.

So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was BEFORE he was water baptized. (Acts 9:18) Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism.

*Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - WHAT IS TRUTH: Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?

Acts 22:16 does not establish baptismal regeneration. The verse itself demonstrates that the “washing away” of sins in baptism mentioned is representative and figurative, not literal.

*It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was still lost in his sins.

The article "What is truth:22:16" is very typical of a credobaptist interpretation of baptism.

The author states....."Baptism is a figure of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5) and a public testimony of the believer’s faith in that death and resurrection."

Please provide chapter and verse where Scripture states baptism is a "public testimony of the believers faith."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The article "What is truth:22:16" is very typical of a credobaptist interpretation of baptism.

The author states....."Baptism is a figure of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5) and a public testimony of the believer’s faith in that death and resurrection."

Please provide chapter and verse where Scripture states baptism is a "public testimony of the believers faith."

It's odd isn't it, that the very people who insist that Catholic teaching about paedobaptism has no biblical foundations (which is not the truth) are the first to attribute to baptism a meaning that has no biblical foundations, namely that baptism is a public proclamation of one's faith (which is not biblical).

Such a claim would do far better if they said "public baptisms do, as a side effect, show that the person baptised has professed faith in Jesus Christ" because such is true insofar as the rite of baptism requires a profession of faith to be made by the one(s) requesting baptism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Acts 9:1-18 tells the story of Saul's conversion, his encounter with the Lord on the road, his blindless, his healing and baptism. In short, his conversion is a process that ends with baptism.

I don't believe there is one normative way the Book of Acts presents the giving of the HS in baptism. The gift of the HS may come immediately before baptism (Cornelius, Acts 10) immediately after baptism (Acts 8 & 19) or during (Acts 2, 9:17). In Acts 9, I take Paul recieving the HS, becoming sighted and baptism as three actions of God in one event which should not be divided and parsed separately. Of course I agree Paul's conversion process ends with baptism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't believe there is one normative way the Book of Acts presents the giving of the HS in baptism. The gift of the HS may come immediately before baptism (Cornelius, Acts 10) immediately after baptism (Acts 8 & 19) or during (Acts 2, 9:17). In Acts 9, I take Paul recieving the HS, becoming sighted and baptism as three actions of God in one event which should not be divided and parsed separately. Of course I agree Paul's conversion process ends with baptism.

His conversion is a process. Our own conversions are processes. The gift of the Holy Spirit is also a process, the Holy Spirit is given, and he also fills, and he also enables for specific tasks, and he does other things in the life of Christians. But most of all, the Holy Spirit is in God's people because God's people are in Jesus Christ.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It's odd isn't it, that the very people who insist that Catholic teaching about paedobaptism has no biblical foundations (which is not the truth) are the first to attribute to baptism a meaning, namely that baptism is a public proclamation of one's faith (which is not biblical), that has no biblical foundations.

Such a claim would do far better if they said "public baptisms do, as a side effect, show that the person baptised has professed faith in Jesus Christ" because such is true insofar as the rite of baptism requires a profession of faith to be made by the one(s) requesting baptism.

Quite so. If baptism were seen as a public proclamation then we would expect verses speaking about baptism to mention the individuals who witness the baptisms to be the focus, or the testimonies of individuals to be the focus. Baptism is never spoken of as an event for the eyes of the audience. We also do not see any testimonies for the public before baptism, past “they believed” (present in some examples and not others).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This video is useful and our credobaptist interlocutors may find it informative.

 

[Danthemailman]

The article "What is truth:22:16" is very typical of a credobaptist interpretation of baptism.

The author states....."Baptism is a figure of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5) and a public testimony of the believer’s faith in that death and resurrection."

Please provide chapter and verse where Scripture states baptism is a "public testimony of the believers faith."

You don't need those exact words spelled out in scripture in order to figure that out. Now in regard to 1 Peter 3:21, Peter says that baptism 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 day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You don't need those exact words spelled out in scripture in order to figure that out.

What a wonderful admission, one does not need a verse in order to figure out what the scriptures teach however it really helps when one has verses to explicitly state one's doctrine. And those who believe in baptismal regeneration have John 3:5, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12-13, Gal 3:27. There are more such verses, and the scriptures as a whole teach this very doctrine, that the one who is washed by the Lord Jesus Christ in the waters of baptism is without doubt cleansed from his sins and born again in Christ.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

*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 day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

The historical Genesis flood is a Anti-type/Type to baptism. In Peter's text, water is the saving agent and in Hebrews the ark is the saving agent. Depending on your denominational background, one picks or chooses one or the other and polemically bashes the other side.

Water and the ark----means the same thing. One can not be saved by water WITHOUT THE ARK... or Noah and his family would have drowned. And at the same time, one cannot be saved WITHOUT THE WATER....or Noah would have just lived on the ark he built with no flood, no water and sometime died later on in it...while the world would be still be filled of evil and violence.

Peter just uses water to make his point and the writer of Hebrews uses the ark to make his point.

I'll get to your further points about a clear conscience tomorrow....need to go.

 

[Danthemailman]

What a wonderful admission, one does not need a verse in order to figure out what the scriptures teach however it really helps when one has verses to explicitly state one's doctrine. And those who believe in baptismal regeneration have John 3:5, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12-13, Gal 3:27. There are more such verses, and the scriptures as a whole teach this very doctrine, that the one who is washed by the Lord Jesus Christ in the waters of baptism is without doubt cleansed from his sins and born again in Christ.

My admission in no way equates to conceding in regard to your argument about baptism and baptismal regeneration is a dangerous, false doctrine. I will cover these misinterpreted verses on baptism that you cited above in order to justify baptismal regeneration in my next post.

Two other examples in scripture where certain words don't need to be specifically mentioned in order to figure out what was meant:

1. Symbolic. In John 6:54, Jesus said - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life. Well, Jesus was not speaking of literal "cannibalism" but was speaking symbolically. Jesus is the Bread of Life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. In John 6:35, we read - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus is using figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of this passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

So, eating and drinking is not literal cannibalism here, but the receiving of God’s grace by believing in Christ for salvation, as Jesus makes clear by repeating the same truths below:

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" and "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" ends in the same result, receiving eternal life. Bread represents the "staff of life" - sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life. The source of physical life is blood - "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

2. Faith alone. I often hear those who teach salvation by faith + works mock salvation by faith in Christ alone. Yet the Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1-2; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-14, 26; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

Now you don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus, baptism? Plus, works? NO. So, then it's faith (rightly understood) IN CHRIST ALONE.

*Not to be confused with an empty profession of faith/dead faith that remains "alone" -- barren of works (James 2:14-24)

 

[Danthemailman]

And those who believe in baptismal regeneration have John 3:5, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12-13, Gal 3:27. There are more such verses, and the scriptures as a whole teach this very doctrine, that the one who is washed by the Lord Jesus Christ in the waters of baptism is without doubt cleansed from his sins and born again in Christ.

The scriptures as a whole teach salvation by faith and not salvation by water baptism.

In John 3:5, 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. Did you see that? The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. Jesus said born of water and the Spirit and not born of baptism and the Spirit and also, Jesus connects this living water with eternal life. (John 4:14)

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.

The word "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, 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) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

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

In Ephesians 5:26, the apostle Paul said - washing of water by the word and not by baptism. Once again, the word "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)

In Titus 3:5, the washing of regeneration is not accomplished by water of baptism, but by spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." Plain ordinary H20 has no power to cleanse the heart from sin and regenerate the new believer. Also, works of righteousness which we have done, (literally, works done in righteousness) would include water baptism, so your interpretation would be a contradiction. Water baptism is a work of righteousness. Just ask Jesus. (Matthew 3:13-15)

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. So, salvation rests on belief. 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 1 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 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; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*

In Acts 2:41 - Then they that gladly received his word were (afterwards) baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Nothing is mentioned here about baptism being the direct cause of being added to the Lord's body.

In Acts 4:4, we read - However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. *What happened to baptism?

Also, in Acts 5:14, we read - And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

CONTINUED...

 

[Danthemailman]

In Acts 8:12-13, believed first, then afterwards baptized. Simon the sorcerer is said to have “believed and was baptized” at the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:13) but later, when Simon offers the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit (verses 18–19), he is rebuked by Peter. Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. (verses 20-24) Now even though we read that Simon "believed," the remainder of the verse hints at the true object of his belief: "the miracles and signs which were done." No saving belief in Christ. False conversion.

Galatians 3:26 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Period.) *Not through faith and water baptism. Also read John 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. *Received Him, given the right to become children of God, through believing in His name, not through water baptism.

Galatians 3:27 - For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on/clothed yourself with Christ. The Greek word for "put on" is "enduo" and means to enclose oneself in, as when one "puts on" clothes or armor or some other item. Involved in this is the idea of "imitation" and "identification." So how does one "put on" Christ in baptism? Is it because one becomes a "child of God" through water baptism? NO. "Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light...put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." (Romans 13:12,14) This exhortation is written to Christians (those already saved). Evidently then, baptism is not the only way to "put on" Christ. To "put on" Christ is to conform to Him, imitate Him. So it is in baptism; we "put on" Christ, conforming to Him in the ordinance that declares Him to be our Savior. So if "put on" Christ means saved through water baptism, apparently we are not saved yet. We must also "put on" Christ by making no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts in order to be saved as well. (Romans 13:14) Right? NO. Let's be consistent. This exhortation is to those ALREADY SAVED.

"Put off," wrote Paul, "the old man," and "put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness"(Ephesians 4:22,24); And "put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." (Ephesians 6:11) The allusion is to putting off old clothes and putting on new ones, to enclosing oneself in armor, etc. When a soldier puts on armor, he is imitating his superiors and is revealing himself to be a soldier. One does not put on a uniform in order to become a soldier. Simply putting on a soldier's uniform does not make one become a soldier. Once one is made a soldier one is then able to put on and wear the uniform that distinguishes or marks them as a soldier.

Putting on a judge's robe does not, in itself, make anyone a "judge." But one who has been made a judge is qualified to put on "judicial robes" and thus declare their qualifications. So too with being water baptized, the Christian puts on robes for which they have previously been qualified to wear. The putting on of Christ is not what makes one become a Christian, but one which becomes a token of it, as in Romans 13:14. If one puts on the clothes of a Christian, in water baptism, without first becoming a Christian (child of God through faith), then one becomes an imposter, and is declaring, in baptism, to be what they are not.

The Bible makes it clear that men are saved prior to receiving water baptism. These Gentiles in Acts 10 received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were manifesting the spiritual gift of tongues (which is only for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) after believing the gospel but before receiving water baptism. (Acts 10:44-47) Now of course, baptism was not considered an "optional extra" for these Gentiles. It was a command (Acts 10:48) that they were expected to obey. However, it was not obedience to this command that saved them, but their believing in Christ. (Acts 10:43)

Baptism is the expected initial outward response to the gospel, but it is not a part of the gospel itself. (1 Corinthians 1:17; 15:1-4) There are a handful of 'alleged' prooftexts which are often cited to prove that the Bible makes baptism mandatory for salvation. A careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, though they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, these texts only prove that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.

*If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then God would not make so many statements in scripture in which He promises eternal life/salvation to those who simply BELIEVE/PLACE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST FOR SALVATION. (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1-2; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-14, 26; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

 

[Danthemailman]

The historical Genesis flood is a Anti-type/Type to baptism. In Peter's text, water is the saving agent and in Hebrews the ark is the saving agent. Depending on your denominational background, one picks or chooses one or the other and polemically bashes the other side.

Water and the ark----means the same thing. One can not be saved by water WITHOUT THE ARK... or Noah and his family would have drowned. And at the same time, one cannot be saved WITHOUT THE WATER....or Noah would have just lived on the ark he built with no flood, no water and sometime died later on in it...while the world would be still be filled of evil and violence.

Peter just uses water to make his point and the writer of Hebrews uses the ark to make his point.

I'll get to your further points about a clear conscience tomorrow....need to go.

The Greek word "antitupon" used in I Peter 3:21, denotes, in the NT, "a corresponding type," being "said of baptism." "The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms "a corresponding type," each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type and baptism, the corresponding type." Noah was saved by the ark "through (via) water." Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. (Hebrews 11:7)

The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of "salvation." Their "salvation" was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. *By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My admission in no way equates to conceding in regard to your argument about baptism and baptismal regeneration is a dangerous, false doctrine

Don't let fear drive you away from the truth.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

eating and drinking is not literal cannibalism

Who claims that partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is cannibalism? Catholics do not, nor Lutherans, nor Orthodox, nor Anglicans, nor Coptic Christians, nor Oriental Orthodox, nor Ethiopic Christian Church Christians, nor any of the ancient churches or protestant churches that believe in the real presence as the Church has from the beginning, teaches that sacramental partaking of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is cannibalism.