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

[Xeno.of.athens]

"He who believes" and "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" ends in the same result, receiving eternal life.

Yes, of course it does, that would be because the sacraments of baptism and the holy eucharist both effect real union with Jesus Christ; there is nothing bad about believing that one receives the life of Christ through baptism and holy communion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I often hear those who teach salvation by faith + works mock salvation by faith in Christ alone.

Receiving gifts from God in the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist is not performing works. The sacraments are gifts. They are graces given by God. And if it is of grace then it no longer of works.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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

Amen to the scriptures teaching salvation by grace through faith, that is a most precious truth and one which I hold most dear. It is a great comfort to know that salvation depends on God's goodness rather than on my goodness. No one can earn God's gift of life in Jesus Christ. That being so, no one ought to hold in contempt the gift of God's Spirit in baptism, nor the gift of Life in communion. What seems to be causing confusing in your replies is the assumption that any of the ancient churches teaches that one is saved by having a bath, or by eating bread and drinking wine quite apart from grace. None of the ancient churches teach such a thing. Nor do the Protestant churches that believe in the real presence, nor do the protestants who reject the real presence and teach symbolic partaking, no one teaches that water or bread & wine saves, but everyone teaches that God saves by whatever means he chooses to use. It is by grace that Christians are saved, not by works, this is so in order to stop any one from boasting of their works.

 

[Danthemailman]

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

Fear of what? Prior to my conversion, I was born and raised in the Roman Catholic church, and I had an unhealthy fear of God as if He was a tyrant who could not wait to punish me every time I messed up and I also suffered from fear and bondage to insecurity about my salvation. After my conversion, my fear of God now revolves around awe and reverence for Him motivated by love (Psalm 33:18; Psalm 147:11; Romans 5:5) and I finally have assurance of salvation. (1 John 5:11-13) Praise God!

 

[Danthemailman]

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.

Literally eating His body and literally drinking His blood (transubstantiation) equates to cannibalism. Belief in the real presence leads to a misplaced faith. Jesus was speaking symbolically and spiritually about His body and blood. (John 6:63)

 

[Danthemailman]

Yes, of course it does, that would be because the sacraments of baptism and the holy eucharist both effect real union with Jesus Christ; there is nothing bad about believing that one receives the life of Christ through baptism and holy communion.

Like I said. This belief results in a misplaced faith which also culminates in salvation by works.

The Catholic Church Teaches Salvation by Works

 

[LoveofTruth]

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.

I believe the Jews were still following Johns water baptism and the law and customs (Acts 2, 15, 16, 21 etc) and they simply changed the wording a bit but we see Jesus tell them in Acts one that John baptized (past tense) with water… he mebtioned water baptism. Any water baptism after the old covenant that had “diverse washings” and carnal ordinances, (Hebrews 9) is past for the new testament. The one baptism that all believers have is by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13 KJV). This is the baptism into Christ, where we put in Christ (not water). And we don’t read of two baptisms (water and the Spirit) making up one baptism in some kind of so called man made “sacramental union”.

Peter was water baptizing the Gentiles after they already were saved in Acts 10 in a questioning way. Then in chapter 11 we see that he remembered Jesus words about John baptizing with WATER when he was remembering the Gentiles being filled with the Spirit. So it appears that Peter was still following Johns water baptism. The issue was with the actual “water”not the mode or words used. Peter may ajso have been following partly the Halakah law of the Jewish customs as well and that had Gentiles baptized when they came into the law covenant.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Fear of what? Prior to my conversion, I was born and raised in the Roman Catholic church, and I had an unhealthy fear of God as if He was a tyrant who could not wait to punish me every time I messed up and I also suffered from fear and bondage to insecurity about my salvation. After my conversion, my fear of God now revolves around awe and reverence for Him motivated by love (Psalm 33:18; Psalm 147:11; Romans 5:5) and I finally have assurance of salvation. (1 John 5:11-13) Praise God!

Literally eating His body and literally drinking His blood (transubstantiation) equates to cannibalism. Belief in the real presence leads to a misplaced faith. Jesus was speaking symbolically and spiritually about His body and blood. (John 6:63)

Like I said. This belief results in a misplaced faith which also culminates in salvation by works.

The Catholic Church Teaches Salvation by Works

Well, thanks for your time. There is nothing further that I want to type to you on this topic.

 

[Danthemailman]

Well, thanks for your time. There is nothing further that I want to type to you on this topic.

Thank you as well. Even though we did not come to an agreement, it's still nice to end in a civil manner.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I believe the Jews were still following Johns water baptism and the law and customs (Acts 2, 15, 16, 21 etc) and they simply changed the wording a bit ...

I understand your perspective, it's an interesting way to look at the texts. But as interesting as your perspective is, it is not what Christians believed in the first or second or third centuries or any century subsequent to the third century until some, yourself among them started to believe the way that you do. Christ promised to be with the church until then end of the ages, to keep the church free from the gates of hell, to teach the church, to guide the church from the beginning until he comes again, were I to accept what you're teaching then I'd need to abandon those promises that he made about his church and I do not want to abandon what Jesus promised to the church because when I abandon one of his promises how can I ever be sure any of his other promises is not also subject to change today or next week or in a decade?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

*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..).

The same thing can be said about repentance. The word repent either in its noun or verb form is not even found in the majority of the NT books. Certainly not John's gospel. How many times in your verse listing does repentance occur?

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)

Repent or repentance is not even found in I Corinthians.

Does this mean the Christian doesn't have to repent? This is just a dumb argument.

The question really boils down to this.....how many passages of Scripture does it take to establish Scripture teaching that is binding to all Christians over space and time and presupposed on every page of the NT? At the root level we see a misunderstanding of how any one doctrine is established and the function of doctrine in general.

How many passages of Scripture are needed to establish a Biblical doctrine? Take for example, the Scriptural teaching concerning the Incarnation. The incarnation is presupposed on every page of the NT and doctrinally binding on all Christians to believe. And it truly is apart of the Gospel, because if there is no incarnation there is substitutionary atonement, hence no Christianity. No mention of the Incarnation/Virgin Birth in I Cor. 15:1-4 either....does that mean the Incarnation is not apart of the Gospel?

The incarnation is established upon the virgin birth narratives of which there are only two (Matthew and Luke). Following the guidance from Scripture, it only takes two passages of scriptural teaching on the same subject matter to establish any article of faith. Two passages from different authors, two passages from the same author in two different books, or two passages from the same author within the same book, but two different contexts.

But Baptists and American Evangelical bypass this interpretative principle and demand in every single instance where the gospel is preached baptism must all be associated within the context.

Baptism is a unique doctrine is Scripture as it is suffers from too much doctrinal content. We have at least two or three teaching from our Lord, eight or nine examples of baptism in the Book of Acts, multiple comments by Paul, and two by Peter. This is an enormous amount of information compared to the doctrine of the Incarnation.

From the establishment of doctrine we notice: every doctrine found in Scripture is its own article of faith. And each article of Faith stands alone by itself and doesn’t need to be substantiated or authenticated by another doctrine. Creation doesn’t need to be substantiated by Redemption, Redemption doesn’t need to be substantiated by Sanctification; neither inspiration v. eternal life, justification v. Hell, God’s providence v. Angels etc. And all articles of faith are interrelated in the organically unified body of Church teaching and are to be believed separately without doubting.

Major problems:

• This interpretive rule if baptism is not taught in every part of Scripture where the Gospel is articulated (example of your listing) it is not apart of the gospel.....is only known to and used by Credobaptists.
• This interpretive rule used by Baptists and American Evangelicals is selectively used only for the Doctrine of Baptism and excludes all other doctrines. Most disgusting.
• Demands exact precision in Scriptural language, where contextually none is given.
• What is not specifically stated in one passage of Scripture takes precedence over what is specifically and explicitly stated in multiple other passages of Scripture. In other words, the exception to the rule IS THE RULE. This is so true per your listing of verses.
• Ignores the common practice interpretive rule “Scriptura interpur Scriptura.”

Bottom line: It doesn't matter if baptism is not taught in any and all passages of Scripture....it is still binding on all Christians.

My main criticism of denominations whose heritage is revivalism....they have one set of rules for interpreting the Bible and another set of rules for just interpreting Baptism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My main criticism of denominations whose heritage is revivalism....they have one set of rules for interpreting the Bible and another set of rules for just interpreting Baptism.

I think that this is the truth.

 

[Danthemailman]

The same thing can be said about repentance. The word repent either in its noun or verb form is not even found in the majority of the NT books. Certainly not John's gospel. How many times in your verse listing does repentance occur?

Repent or repentance is not even found in I Corinthians.

Does this mean the Christian doesn't have to repent? This is just a dumb argument.

The question really boils down to this.....how many passages of Scripture does it take to establish Scripture teaching that is binding to all Christians over space and time and presupposed on every page of the NT? At the root level we see a misunderstanding of how any one doctrine is established and the function of doctrine in general.

How many passages of Scripture are needed to establish a Biblical doctrine? Take for example, the Scriptural teaching concerning the Incarnation. The incarnation is presupposed on every page of the NT and doctrinally binding on all Christians to believe. And it truly is apart of the Gospel, because if there is no incarnation there is substitutionary atonement, hence no Christianity. No mention of the Incarnation/Virgin Birth in I Cor. 15:1-4 either....does that mean the Incarnation is not apart of the Gospel?

The incarnation is established upon the virgin birth narratives of which there are only two (Matthew and Luke). Following the guidance from Scripture, it only takes two passages of scriptural teaching on the same subject matter to establish any article of faith. Two passages from different authors, two passages from the same author in two different books, or two passages from the same author within the same book, but two different contexts.

But Baptists and American Evangelical bypass this interpretative principle and demand in every single instance where the gospel is preached baptism must all be associated within the context.

Baptism is a unique doctrine is Scripture as it is suffers from too much doctrinal content. We have at least two or three teaching from our Lord, eight or nine examples of baptism in the Book of Acts, multiple comments by Paul, and two by Peter. This is an enormous amount of information compared to the doctrine of the Incarnation.

From the establishment of doctrine we notice: every doctrine found in Scripture is its own article of faith. And each article of Faith stands alone by itself and doesn’t need to be substantiated or authenticated by another doctrine. Creation doesn’t need to be substantiated by Redemption, Redemption doesn’t need to be substantiated by Sanctification; neither inspiration v. eternal life, justification v. Hell, God’s providence v. Angels etc. And all articles of faith are interrelated in the organically unified body of Church teaching and are to be believed separately without doubting.

Major problems:

• This interpretive rule if baptism is not taught in every part of Scripture where the Gospel is articulated (example of your listing) it is not apart of the gospel.....is only known to and used by Credobaptists.
• This interpretive rule used by Baptists and American Evangelicals is selectively used only for the Doctrine of Baptism and excludes all other doctrines. Most disgusting.
• Demands exact precision in Scriptural language, where contextually none is given.
• What is not specifically stated in one passage of Scripture takes precedence over what is specifically and explicitly stated in multiple other passages of Scripture. In other words, the exception to the rule IS THE RULE. This is so true per your listing of verses.
• Ignores the common practice interpretive rule “Scriptura interpur Scriptura.”

Bottom line: It doesn't matter if baptism is not taught in any and all passages of Scripture....it is still binding on all Christians.

My main criticism of denominations whose heritage is revivalism....they have one set of rules for interpreting the Bible and another set of rules for just interpreting Baptism.

Repentance precedes faith and water baptism follows faith. The Bible sometimes only mentions repentance as a condition for salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Also see (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31). A few times both repentance and believe/faith are mentioned in the same verse. (Matthew 21:32; Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21) There are many, many verses which mention belief/faith as the condition for salvation (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9 etc..). Repentance is a "change of mind" and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ. *Two sides to the same coin.

When only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other. *Repentance and belief/faith are inseparable in obtaining salvation. If you truly repented unto salvation, then you believe the gospel. If you believe the gospel then you already repented in the process of changing your mind and choosing to believe the gospel. *Not so with baptism. *You can repent and believe the gospel, but NOT YET BE WATER BAPTIZED.

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.

If water baptism is binding on Christians (is absolutely necessary for salvation) then show me just one verse in the Bible that says, "whoever is not baptized will not be saved." We see this with repentance (Luke 13:3) and with belief (John 3:18) but NOT with baptism. Adding baptism to salvation through faith is adding a work to Christ's finished work of redemption yet Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers with no supplements needed. (Romans 3:24-28)

When it comes to interpretating the Bible, I prefer to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. Others simply try to force scripture to "conform" to their biased church doctrine, which typically culminates in a different gospel, namely, salvation by works. I refuse to "add works" to salvation through faith. (Romans 4:5-6; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9 etc..).

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

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.

Jesus institutes Christian baptism AFTER his resurrection but BEFORE his ascension. The disciples only know of John's baptism at this point (which is not identical to Christian baptism). The first Christian baptism begin on the Day of Pentecost and not during Jesus' earthly ministry. This passage does not apply to your argument. This is something you should have known. We also throw out the "What about the thief on the cross?" argument also. The thief was saved exactly like everyone else in the hero's listing of Hebrews 11----by faith. Jesus' establishes baptismal practice AFTER THE RESURRECTION.

Adding baptism to salvation through faith is adding a work to Christ's finished work

culminates in a different gospel, namely, salvation by works. I refuse to "add works" to salvation through faith

Who says baptism is a work? This is a post reformation belief (Baptists, American Evangelicals, Charismatics and Pentecostals) and is in error.

Certainly Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Methodists, the Orthodox and Anglicans do not hold baptism is a work....or anything close to it.

Baptism has at least three basic element to it: 1) water applied to the human body 2) with the Triune formula 3) and another Christian baptizing the recipient.

In baptism, we are passive. We never baptize ourselves. Someone else baptizes us. BAPTISM IS THE WORK OF ANOTHER. Due to baptism being a work of another, it can not be a work we ourselves do. No Christian can take credit for their baptism. Christians can no more take credit for their baptism than one can take credit for open heart surgery. In both actions, the recipient is in a completely passive state.

A person may say..."I consented to be baptized." However, consenting is not baptism, it is consenting." Scriptures do not permit any Christian to believe Baptism is their own a "work" for salvation.

The Lord's Supper is a different matter entirely. In the Lord's Supper, we are active as in "Take eat" and "Take Drink" and quite properly serves as our public testimony and proclamation to the world of our faith...As Paul writes, "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." It

It is in the Lord's Supper we proclaim our faith to the world, not baptism. If you examine all the texts of baptism, you will not find a hint of baptism as a testimony, etc.

Therefore, we Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Methodists, the Orthodox and Anglicans FLAT OUT REJECT THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS OF BAPTISM: (What I have gathered from CF and the Internet)

• Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change.
• A public proclamation and a testimony of God’s work in a believer’s life.
• Baptism is a choice that one needs to make for him/herself as part of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
• It is an act of obedience and discipleship.
• Baptism is seen as an outward expression of an inward spiritual reality that has already taken place at salvation
• Baptism is an immersion in water as an expression of repentant faith in Jesus.
• Baptism is a symbol of identification.
• Baptism is a required step of obedience for a disciple, that is, a person who is already saved.
• Baptism as an outward sign of an inward faith that is in existence prior to coming to Baptism.

​

 

[Danthemailman]

Jesus institutes Christian baptism AFTER his resurrection but BEFORE his ascension. The disciples only know of John's baptism at this point (which is not identical to Christian baptism). The first Christian baptism begin on the Day of Pentecost and not during Jesus' earthly ministry. This passage does not apply to your argument. This is something you should have known. We also throw out the "What about the thief on the cross?" argument also. The thief was saved exactly like everyone else in the hero's listing of Hebrews 11----by faith. Jesus' establishes baptismal practice AFTER THE RESURRECTION.

A common argument used by those who support baptismal regeneration in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate." (Others may argue how do we know he was not already water baptized, just to cover all the bases). I've heard it all.

So let's see, after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." and before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Similar wording in regard to "repentance and baptism."

So, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or was it or FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It would have to be the latter in order to agree with the Old Testament mandate argument from water-salvationists. In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance. If translated "in order to obtain" the verse does not make sense. I baptize you with water FOR (in order to obtain) repentance? or I baptize you with water FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) repentance? Obviously, the latter.

Whatever baptism is "for" in Acts 2:38, it's "for" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. Water baptism is "in regard to" remission of sins received upon repentance. So, the argument that water baptism not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament mandate but is necessary for salvation under the New Testament mandate argument doesn't hold water.

Before AND after Pentecost, salvation is through belief/faith "apart from water baptism." (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:2-6; 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..)

In Matthew 27:39-44, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests' scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized afterwards.

Who says baptism is a work?

You don't believe that baptism is a work? So, no work at all is accomplished by getting water baptized? So, baptism is just a nothing? Nonsense. In Matthew 3:13-15, we read - Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him. Baptism is a work of righteousness, and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done. (Titus 3:5)

This is a post reformation belief (Baptists, American Evangelicals, Charismatics and Pentecostals) and is in error.

This group got it right.

Certainly Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Methodists, the Orthodox and Anglicans do not hold baptism is a work....or anything close to it.

This group got it wrong.

Baptism has at least three basic element to it: 1) water applied to the human body 2) with the Triune formula 3) and another Christian baptizing the recipient. In baptism, we are passive. We never baptize ourselves. Someone else baptizes us.

Just because someone else baptizes us does not mean we are passive in submitting to being baptized. We are not forced to get baptized.

BAPTISM IS THE WORK OF ANOTHER. Due to baptism being a work of another, it can not be a work we ourselves do. No Christian can take credit for their baptism. Christians can no more take credit for their baptism than one can take credit for open heart surgery. In both actions, the recipient is in a completely passive state.

We submit to being baptized so we are not completely passive. Again, we are not forced to get baptized either. If being water baptized stands between us and salvation, then faith in Christ is insufficient to save us which means the OBJECT of our faith (death, burial and resurrection of Christ) is insufficient to save us. We must place our faith exclusively in Jesus Christ for salvation and not Jesus Christ + something else. Jesus Christ is an ALL-sufficient Savior.

A person may say..."I consented to be baptized." However, consenting is not baptism, it is consenting." Scriptures do not permit any Christian to believe Baptism is their own a "work" for salvation.

This type of flawed logic excuses "adding works" to the gospel which does not end well.

The Lord's Supper is a different matter entirely. In the Lord's Supper, we are active as in "Take eat" and "Take Drink" and quite properly serves as our public testimony and proclamation to the world of our faith...As Paul writes, "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

It is in the Lord's Supper we proclaim our faith to the world, not baptism. If you examine all the texts of baptism, you will not find a hint of baptism as a testimony, etc.

Sigh...

Therefore, we Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Methodists, the Orthodox and Anglicans FLAT OUT REJECT THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS OF BAPTISM: (What I have gathered from CF and the Internet)

• Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change.
• A public proclamation and a testimony of God’s work in a believer’s life.
• Baptism is a choice that one needs to make for him/herself as part of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
• It is an act of obedience and discipleship.
• Baptism is seen as an outward expression of an inward spiritual reality that has already taken place at salvation
• Baptism is an immersion in water as an expression of repentant faith in Jesus.
• Baptism is a symbol of identification.
• Baptism is a required step of obedience for a disciple, that is, a person who is already saved.
• Baptism as an outward sign of an inward faith that is in existence prior to coming to Baptism.

It sounds like you and I are nowhere near to coming to an agreement. No need in running it in the ground. Good day sir.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So let's see, after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." and before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Similar wording in regard to "repentance and baptism."

Rare I find someone who believes John's baptism is identical to Christian Baptism. Amazing.

Just because someone else baptizes us does not mean we are passive in submitting to being baptized. We are not forced to get baptized.

As Augustine said correctly...It is not the absence of baptism that damns, but its despisal.

I am out of this conversation.

 

[Danthemailman]

Rare I find someone who believes John's baptism is identical to Christian Baptism. Amazing.

As Augustine said correctly...It is not the absence of baptism that damns, but its despisal.

I am out of this conversation.

I did not say exactly identical yet look at the wording in regards to repentance and baptism in both cases. That was my point.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Rare I find someone who believes John's baptism is identical to Christian Baptism.

Not the same, that is a certainty, yet related.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I developed this matrix a while back just to help me out. John's baptism at minimum lacks the Triune formula. In Acts 19 John's disciples never heard of the Holy Spirit....which they would have if the Triune formula were used. I think the event of Acts 19 clearly shows John's baptism is not Christian baptism due to having John's disciples under go Christian baptism per Paul's order. Acts 19 also deals with the question "What do we do with all of individuals baptized into John's baptism?"....they all had to undergo Christian baptism.

Certainly, no baptist will admit there are promises attached to baptism. They believe God does nothing in baptism and promises nothing in baptism.

@Xeno.of.athens​

One thing I forgot in the matrix is Jewish proselyte baptism. This would be the same as Jewish ceremonial washings. Also not included are the type/antitype baptism of I Peter 3 and I Corinthians 10.