Baptism

[katherine2001]

According to Peter, baptism is for the remission of sins. Acts 2:37-39 says:

37. Now When they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

38. Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

39. "For the rpromise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord your God will call."

Up until the Reformation, everybody in the Church believed that it was for the remission of sins. It wasn't until the Reformation that this changed.

As far as the importance of being baptized, Christ was baptized Himself even though He didn't need it. He also made it part of the Great Commission. If we can't obey Him and follow Him in something like this, how are we going to obey and follow Him in other things?

 

[MamaZ]

If baptism were required for salvation then why did Peter not mention this in these verses?
Act 3:18 "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
Act 3:19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
Act 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.
Act 3:22 "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you.
Act 3:23 'And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'

 

[MamaZ]

Why did Paul not mention baptism in his gospel presentation here either..





1Co 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

 

[MamaZ]

In 1Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and therefore in no way efficacious for salvation.

 

[Thekla]

The epistles of Paul were addressed to the baptized.

 

[jmacvols]

I think that had the people you quoted presented their findings in an appropriate manner, then they could be considered, but since the quotes were obviously so biased containing absolute statements that could not be supported, they are clearly not the best sources to quote.

Shouldn't we take into account your clear bias in your statement above?

Those I quoted got ther information from the available facts.

 

[jmacvols]

of course, by now, the real question is
"does arguing about baptism save anyone?" does it express Christ? does it build up His Body in LOVE?

Christ was the greatest debater that ever lived, even at a young age.

 

[jmacvols]

may I suggest that you look into it further and affirm or refute your belief on your own terms? you will either change or come out stronger in what you believe, but you personally will know the truth for yourself instead of taking someone's word for it.

As I have said, I have read the works of scholars on the subject and the evidence is overwhleming that Mk 16:9-20 is authentic. Earlier you gave a link to the NIV of Mk 16:9-20 where it questioned the authenticity, it gave no proof of its claim, yet the NIV included it anyway. The arguments against Mk 16:9-20 are weak at best, it's really just based on a bias against water baptism.

 

[jmacvols]

Well good luck with that.

no luck is needed on something that is plainly in the bible.

For I am forgiven because of the Blood of Jesus.

Can you expand on this, can you explain how, when, why you became forgiven by the blood of Christ?

 

[jmacvols]

Originally Posted by jmacvols

I believe Christ saves me too, but the means He uses to save me is water baptism.
​

What a post!



I think I can see the water salvation side extremely well because I started out in a 'denomination' that taught the baptism of Jesus (Jn.4:1) and John the Baptist (Mk.1:4).........perverted.

It is the failure to see that the purpose of both Jesus' and John the Baptist's baptism (repentence unto the remission of sins. Mk.1:4) is still the same for today. It never changed! (Mk.1:4) (Jn.4:1) (Acts 2:38) and (Acts 3:19) is the same, only we are baptized in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus. (Acts 19:1-5)

No. The Romans chapter 6 reference to burial is not a reference to water baptism. Neither is the mention of 'baptism' in the same chapter a reference to water baptism......but Spiritual baptism.

You simply make a generalized statement but give no proof to back that statement up. What was that form of doctrine the Romans OBEYED that freed them from sin? In what verse where the Romans commanded to be "spirit baptized"? What verse says "spirit baptism" remits sins?

EDIT: it not only says baptism is a burial but one is raised up from what ever one is buried in.

 

[jmacvols]

If baptism were required for salvation then why did Peter not mention this in these verses?
Act 3:18 "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
Act 3:19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
Act 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.
Act 3:22 "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you.
Act 3:23 'And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'

Let me first ask you this; do you think Peter, who's word's were inspired by the Holy Ghost, was contradicting himself? That he taught something contradictory in Acts 3:19 from what he taught in Acts 2:38?

 

[jmacvols]

Why did Paul not mention baptism in his gospel presentation here either..





1Co 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

As someone already noted, Paul's epistles were written to those already baptized. but let me add this. When Paul was known as Saul, he persecuted the church. From Gal 1:23 we read that he (Paul) which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith he once destroyed. Paul/Saul once destroyed "the faith" at the church at Jerusalem, and "the faith" at the church at Jerusalem consisted of Acts 2:38. Therefore Gal 1:23 proves that Paul "now preacheth" (present tense) repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins.

 

[jmacvols]

In 1Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and therefore in no way efficacious for salvation.

Actually this passage in 1 Cor proves the necessity of baptism for Paul used the necessity of baptism to heal the division at the church in Corinth.

--If Paul was not to baptize, then did he sin when he did baptize, v 14 and 16? No, he did not sin for he was under the great commission to go and teach and baptize as all disciples are, Mt 28:19,20.

--the contrast Paul is making in v17 is between 'baptize' and 'preach', not between 'baptism' and the 'gospel'. At no time ever did Paul say baptism is not part of the gospel. In v14 Paul says I thank God I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius. Why did Paul say this? not because baptism is not part of the gospel but because, v15, lest any should say I baptized in my own name. I think it is also worth noting that in v17 Paul used the verb "baptize" not the noun "baptism", so Paul did not differentiate the gospel from "baptism", he was taking about the act of baptizing. Others could do the baptizing while Paul continued to preach about baptism...he let others do the baptizing so he did not have to quit preaching.

--look at verse 12, some of the Corinthians said they were "of" Paul, some "of" Apollos, some "of" Cephas. Then in v13 Paul asked a question in the negative. This verse stated in the positive would say "Christ is not divided! Christ was crucified for you, you were baptized in the name of Christ." Here in v13 Paul is showing the Corinthians that Christ was the one crucified (not Paul) and they were baptized in the name of Christ (not Paul's name). This verse does show that the Corinthians had been baptized in the name of Christ, which is the same baptism of Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47,48. As Paul tells them in 1 Cor 6:11 "ye are washed", a clear reference to their having been water baptized. What Paul is saying in vs 12 and 13 is that if you are going to be "of" someone, then that someone (1)has to be crucified for you and (2)you have to be baptized in that someone's name. These two things are only true of Christ, not Paul, Cephas, Apollos. So if anyone claims to be "of" Christ, then Christ must have been crucified for them and they must have been baptized in the name of Christ.

--Lastly, v17 is an elliptical not-but statement, where emphasis is put on one thing over another but not to the exclusion of either. Paul put more emphasis on preaching but not to the exclusion of baptizing. Another example of this type of elliptical statement can be found in 1 Pet 3:3,4. Here Peter is talking about the wives adornment when he said 'let it NOT be the outward putting on of apparel, BUT let it be the hidden man of the heart. Here Peter is not saying wives should not put on apparel, but Peter is putting more emphasis on the inward adornment over the outer but not to the exclusion of either, just as Paul put more emphasis on preaching over baptizing, but not to the exclusion of either.

 

[Thekla]

one question:

Christ said to "go baptize..."; the apostles did.
Christ commanded, the apostles did as Christ commanded.
Faith means trust. The apostles did as Christ commanded, and instructed baptism, as an act of faith.

How then can we "arrange" baptism to be optional; it is commanded and if we trust (have faith), we do as commanded.

 

[New_Wineskin]

quote
Baptism
When should it be done?
To whom?
How (immersion, sprinkling, etc.)
What does it signifiy?
Is it essential for salvation?

explain your answers.


You are discussing *water* baptism . So , there is *no* should - *not* a requirement for salvation . Paul's argument against circumcism is a perfect argument against water baptism as the attitude towards water baptism today is a perfect match to the attitude towards circumcism to which Paul wrote . The same *reasons* that people give for demanding water baptism are the same *reasons* that people gave for demanding circumcism to which Paul wrote :

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." 10I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. (NIV)


All you have to do is substitute "water baptized" for "circumcized" and "drown" instead of "emasculate" .

 

[Stinker]

According to Peter, baptism is for the remission of sins. Acts 2:37-39 says:

37. Now When they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

38. Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

39. "For the rpromise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord your God will call."

Up until the Reformation, everybody in the Church believed that it was for the remission of sins. It wasn't until the Reformation that this changed.

As far as the importance of being baptized, Christ was baptized Himself even though He didn't need it. He also made it part of the Great Commission. If we can't obey Him and follow Him in something like this, how are we going to obey and follow Him in other things?

Mark 1:4 (King James Version)

4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


John 3:22-26 (New International Version)

22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew[a] over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."



John 4:1-2 (New International Version)

1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

Yes, Jesus did water baptize his 12 disciples. Then they in turn, water baptized everyone who came to Jesus with the same water baptism we practice today, the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins.

Nowhere do we read of there being a change in water baptism from when Jesus and John the Baptist were administering it, except in the authority (name of) the authorizer. (Acts 19:1-5)

This is where many have been misled. Being taught that there had been a change at Pentecost (Acts 2:38) because of the wording being slightly different from (Mk.1:4). The reason for Acts 2:38 being worded slightly different is because the listeners are different from those who would come to Jesus in the very recent past, to hear Him. Back in (Jn.3:26, & 4:1,2) the disciples would have told the listeners to "repent unto the remission of your sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus" . Since the Pentecost audience was a former enemy of Jesus, and sure did not come to the 12 disciples on that day, we can see why Peter worded Acts 2:38 slightly different.

 

[MamaZ]

If baptism were a requirement for salvation then why were people saved before baptism?

 

[ticker]

I like pizza!

 

[MamaZ]

one question:

Christ said to "go baptize..."; the apostles did.
Christ commanded, the apostles did as Christ commanded.
Faith means trust. The apostles did as Christ commanded, and instructed baptism, as an act of faith.

How then can we "arrange" baptism to be optional; it is commanded and if we trust (have faith), we do as commanded.

Paul was not sent to baptize.. He was sent to the gentiles to preach the Gospel.

 

[Thekla]

Paul was not sent to baptize.. He was sent to the gentiles to preach the Gospel.

but this is not about Paul, but about baptism