Baptism

[TheBear]

I would like the moderators to create this question in a poll, if at all possible.
In the mean time, please start off your post with a yes or no answer to the following question.

Is water baptism required for salvation?

My answer is no. Water baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

John

 

[Blynn]

My answer is also no.


God Bless,
Roberta

 

[M.O.G.]

nope!

The theif on the cross was not baptized.

M.O.G.

 

[man in the box]

No water baptism is not required for salvation. One might even question if water baptism is for today.

 

[Mandy]

No.

 

[Hervey]

No , water baptism is not required for salvation

IN Christ - Hervey

 

[jbenjesus]

at the lack of conviction of the principle doctrines of Christ.

"Water baptism is an ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ. If it is not important in the plan of God, why did Jesus command it in Matthew 28:19? And why did Peter follow up by saying "every one of you," in Acts 2:38 and by commanding them to be baptized in Acts 10:48? There are two things that we should remember: First - Whatever Christ definitely established or ordained cannot be unimportant whether we understand its importance or not. Second - Christ and the Apostles showed the importance of this ordinance by observing it, Jesus walked seventy miles to be baptized though He was without sin, saying, "For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Read Matthew 3:3-16.

One may say that water does not contain any virtue, but remember that it is included in God’s Plan of Salvation. Peter explains it by saying, "...baptism doth also now save us (not by putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." I Peter 3:21. In Luke 7:30 we find that the Pharisees and Lawyers "rejected the counsel of God against themselves being not baptized." - Emon Thompson

And many of you say like the Pharisees and the religious rulers of Jesus day that it is unnecessary?! Baptism was the counsel of God given through John the Baptist and continued by Jesus to its completion and commanded of the apostles to preach and exercise. How could it not be required?

Mark 7: 9 Jesus said, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

People reject the COMMANDMENTS of God given through Jewish apostles to keep what they want and throw out what they don't want. Sorry folks. It doesn't work your way, it works His way.

The theif on the cross was not under the New Covenant, but the Old Covenant. Baptism of the New Covenant was not necessary for him. If you truly believe baptism in not necessary then you must also believe repentace is not necessary. They are both absolutely essential.

Let me guess: "easy believism" - you think all you have to do is think in your mind that Jesus died, buried and rose again and you have obtainted salvation.

Do you not know what is true biblical faith?

Do you not know that the gospel is not just some good news message? Inherent in the gospel is a command to obey!

I Peter 4:17 - "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"

You must respond to that gospel with obedience.

Else it would not give such an explicit warning, as this, for those who do not obey the gospel:

2 Thessalonians 1:8 - "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Your testimony contradicts explicit statements in scripture. The scriptures clearly state otherwise.

Hello!

 

[Hervey]

Hi J:

Matthew 28:19 does not say "water"

Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:48 does not say "water"

Have you not read Matthew 3:11 ?

What happened on the day of pentecost ?

Love IN Christ - Hervey

 

[Mandy]

If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Jesus promise the thief on the cross next to His, that he would that day be with Him in Paradise? He was not baptized.

We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, not by works.
Baptism is something that is done after conversion, because one must first believe with all their heart that Jesus is the Messiah.

Look at the account of Cornelius. It was quite obvious that the man was saved and filled with the Spirit before baptism.

The gospel is not about baptism it is about the Lord Jesus. Jesus died for our sins and His blood was shed for the remission of sins. We cannot ever hope to satisfy God by our works, He has been satisfied by the FINISHED work of Jesus Christ.
If we add things that we do into salvation, then it isn't grace.
God became flesh to save us because we cannot save ourselves.

 

[jbenjesus]

The thief on the cross was not under the New Covenant. He was under the Old Covenant. The requirement of baptism was not instituted until after Jesus died, buried, and rose again.

Hervey: Your actually going to tell me that Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48 had nothing to do with water baptism in Jesus name?

John the Baptist, by the counsel of God, baptized people for the remission of sins in water. Jesus said that it was by the counsel of God that John the Baptist did this which the Pharisees would not submit to. Jesus baptized his disciples in water. Jesus told them to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - Jesus. All the disciples knew, previous to this point, that baptism was baptism in water.

Have you looked at the precedental pattern of Acts?

I suppose you think Acts 8:12 also had nothing to do with baptism in water in Jesus' name?

I suppose this same evanglist, Phillip, in 8:12 didn't baptise the Samaritans in water in Jesus' name, but he did baptize the Ethiopian eunuch in water in Jesus' name?

I suppose Acts 9:18 doesn't refer to water in Jesus' name either? Yet it is confirmed in 22:16 that Paul says, in recounting his own experience, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Wash away doesn't refer to the act of faith working with obedience to immerse himself in the waters calling on the name of Jesus?

I suppose in 10:45 when the house of Cornelius received the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, that Peter said 3 verses later "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" that he wasn't referring to baptism in water in Jesus' name either? Obviously Peter wasn't referring to the baptism in the Holy Spirit b/c they had already received the Holy Spirit. What could he have possibly been talking about in contrast to baptism in the Holy Spirit? Hmmm...

I suppose in 19:5 when Paul baptized the apparent disciples in the name of Lord Jesus he didn't immerse them in the water either? He even contrasted it with John the Baptist baptism of repentace of the remission (forgiveness) of sins in water. Paul said they needed to get baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of sins now!

Paul, even wrote to Roman Christians, clarifying and giving understanding to their water baptismal in Jesus' name experience by noting that they were baptized in Jesus' name into His death (water baptism in Jesus' name) and raised with Him by the Holy Spirit who raised up Jesus (baptism in the Spirit).

Like a penguin can't fly, neither can that argument (b/c it doesn't say "water") of yours fly.

Folks, the Word of God is true, let every man be a liar that says contrary to the Word.

Jesus said Himself, "It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

C'mon guys, it's hard to kick against the pricks.

Any truly God fearing man or woman who loves God and trusts him will obey Him. Obedience is not a work. It is a required response to the God you love. Abraham was imputed with righteousness because He obeyed God. Putting Isaac on the altar of sacrifice was not a work to obtain salvation. Leaving his homeland was not a work to obtain salvation. Putting away Ishmael and Hagar was not a work to obtain salvation. Faith and works (obedience) is an expected response by God.

Man didn't come up with the idea and say, "To obtain salvation, I will baptize myself in water in the name of Jesus." We could never even think of such a thing. The reason we get baptized is b/c we love Jesus and our love is shown by our obedience to Him.

If Abraham never obeyed God when God spoke, he would not be considered a man of faith. Real men of faith obey God out of love and willfull submittedness to Him (repentance). They don't do it to get saved.

 

[Hervey]

Hi J:

My replies within your post >

Hervey: Your actually going to tell me that Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48 had nothing to do with water baptism in Jesus name?

That is exactly what I am saying !! You didn't hear me the first time ?

John the Baptist, by the counsel of God, baptized people for the remission of sins in water. Jesus said that it was by the counsel of God that John the Baptist did this which the Pharisees would not submit to. Jesus baptized his disciples in water. Jesus told them to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - Jesus. All the disciples knew, previous to this point, that baptism was baptism in water.

Obviously you did not read Matthew 3:11 which tells us what and with what Jesus is going to baptize us ! ! It says it right there in the verse ---- The Holy Spirit and fire !

Have you looked at the precedental pattern of Acts?

Yes !

I suppose you think Acts 8:12 also had nothing to do with baptism in water in Jesus' name?

That is correct, I do not !

I suppose this same evanglist, Phillip, in 8:12 didn't baptise the Samaritans in water in Jesus' name, but he did baptize the Ethiopian eunuch in water in Jesus' name?

No he did not, at least not as you have explained it ! He baptized him with water, but not in Jesus' name ! Can you show me different ?

I suppose Acts 9:18 doesn't refer to water in Jesus' name either? Yet it is confirmed in 22:16 that Paul says, in recounting his own experience, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Neither verse implies water ! You also can "wash" away impurities with fire ! "The words of the Lord are pure words : as silver tried in a furnace of earth , purified seven times" - Psalms 12:6. Fire always cleanses much, much better than water , and that is a fact, even though God's Word already says it !

Wash away doesn't refer to the act of faith working with obedience to immerse himself in the waters calling on the name of Jesus?

Is this a question , or a comment ? To "wash" can be taken literally or figuratively.

I suppose in 10:45 when the house of Cornelius received the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, that Peter said 3 verses later "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" that he wasn't referring to baptism in water in Jesus' name either? Obviously Peter wasn't referring to the baptism in the Holy Spirit b/c they had already received the Holy Spirit. What could he have possibly been talking about in contrast to baptism in the Holy Spirit? Hmmm...

Don't suppose ! This record is "not" talking about water bapitsm !

I suppose in 19:5 when Paul baptized the apparent disciples in the name of Lord Jesus he didn't immerse them in the water either? He even contrasted it with John the Baptist baptism of repentace of the remission (forgiveness) of sins in water. Paul said they needed to get baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of sins now!

And especially in Acts 19:5 Paul did not baptize them with water ! The Name of Jesus Christ , yes. And they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire -- Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:3.

Paul, even wrote to Roman Christians, clarifying and giving understanding to their water baptismal in Jesus' name experience by noting that they were baptized in Jesus' name into His death (water baptism in Jesus' name) and raised with Him by the Holy Spirit who raised up Jesus (baptism in the Spirit).

You must be thinking of Romans 6:3 thru 10 ? If so, there is absolutly no mention of water baptism in these verses ! But if you are one to add things to scripture that is not there, it is your neck .

Like a penguin can't fly, neither can that argument (b/c it doesn't say "water") of yours fly.

Folks, the Word of God is true, let every man be a liar that says contrary to the Word.

Jesus said Himself, "It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

I think the problem is now, > Are you listening and reading what is written ? ?

Love IN Christ - HErvey

 

[Christopher]

perhaps a restating wuld be approriate...

water baptism is not nescessary for repentance,justification, and regeneration... but in the outworking of the plan of salvation in a whole/general context water baptism is an essential part of the gospel message and thus nesecessary to salvation in that respect. One should not be baptized who has not repented and bears the fruit of regenration and it's washing away of our sins, which water baptism prefogures....but it is the heart baptism our dying with Christ and risin again in new spiritual life that saves us, that is that causes us to be born again. however one that would not obey the command to be baptized in water, would be refuting the gospel message, and identification with christ and his death,burial, and ressurection. He said if you were ashamed of him, he would be ashamed of you.


with that said, believing that was the intent of the originial question and with this post as a qualifier....

no, water baptism is not nesecaary to become saved or converted.

Christopher

 

[jbenjesus]

Hervey,

Phillip preaching to the eunuch in Acts 8:35,36:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

It says, Phillip preached Jesus unto him. The eunuch as they were come to water said, "what prevents me from being baptized"? The eunuch connected water with baptism. How did he know to do that? Phillip must have spoke that to him. How else would he know to connect baptism and water b/c it wasn't so clear in the Old Covenant unless someone with the Spirit and His revelation shares it with him. There is the connection. Knowing this, understand the context of Acts 8:12.

The eunuch confessed what needs to be confessed at baptism in water, "And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The confession is his call. There is the water baptism in Jesus name and is connected with water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Just as John the Baptist baptism of repentance in water was for the remission of sins.

Paul was baptized washing away his sins, calling on the name of Jesus just as the eunuch. "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Matthew 3:11 speaks of the Jesus baptizing in Spirit (Pentecost) and in fire. No argument.

We're talking about water baptism.

 

[Hervey]

Hi J:

You asked as to where did this Eunuch come to the understanding, as to water baptism , when he saw water.

False teachings were being taught "in the temple". The apostles were "not" teaching in the temple. If you would have read and retained the context in this chapter. You would have noticed from where did this Eunuch just come from !

He went to Jerusalem to worship at the temple in Jerusalem. In verse 28 it tells us that he was returning from his time of worship in Jerusalem. Then we understand that from the scriptures, he did not understand what he was reading. Then from that point Philip started teaching him about Jesus Christ.

The "water baptism" which was being taught in the temple, and not by the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ, is where he got the idea from. Where was Philip and the disciples and apostles of Jesus Christ at this time ? I will guarantee you that they were not in Jerusalem, because of Saul (Paul) . Just read verse one of this same chapter we are talking about -- Acts 8:1 - 5. Ask yourself as to whom was still left in Jerusalem at this very time, in which this Eunuch went to Jerusalem to worship ? ? If you do not come up with false teachers, then there is something wrong with your ability to read what is written !

You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole in your explanations.

You said >

The eunuch confessed what needs to be confessed at baptism in water, "And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The confession is his call. There is the water baptism in Jesus name and is connected with water for the remission of sins

If you would please take a closer look at Acts 8:37 & 38 & 39 , you will notice that your explanation does not line up verse by verse with the record in these verses ! Verse 37 was not in any way a part of the water baptism ! But you decided to make it seem that way in your mind. "After" verse 37 the Eunuch told the driver of the chariot to stop. "Not" Philip ! !

"When" they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip" << Ask yourself, as to why did the Spirit of the Lord do this ? It also tells us, that the Eunuch saw Philip no more. << Why ? The Eunuch went on his way rejoicing. Ask yourself, as to why did not the Eunuch speak in tongues and glorify God ? All other records tell us that they speak in tongues and glorify God. Yet this Eunuch was just one happy Ethiopian Eunuch, and he went on his way, which was to go back to his home from which he came. He was a man of great authority , under Candace , queen of the Ethiopians. And there are no records of Christianity coming out of Ethiopia . There is one reason for this , pertaining to this Eunuch. He never was baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire.

You said that "we" are talking about water baptism. That is not true, we are talking about whether or not water baptism is necessary for salvation, and it is not ! ! Nor was it taught by the apostles or disciples of Jesus Christ "after" the day of pentecost ! < That is a fact that can not be disputed !

John baptize with water, but his baptism never gave salvation unto anyone. It was for the "remission" of sins. And his baptism preceeded the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, which was the "forgivness" of sins. And , in the unity of the Spirit, there is only "one" baptism - Ephesians 4:5

Love IN Christ - Hervey

 

[Mandy]

I suppose in 10:45 when the house of Cornelius received the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, that Peter said 3 verses later "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" that he wasn't referring to baptism in water in Jesus' name either? Obviously Peter wasn't referring to the baptism in the Holy Spirit b/c they had already received the Holy Spirit. What could he have possibly been talking about in contrast to baptism in the Holy Spirit? Hmmm...

Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, before baptism and we cannot receive the Holy Spirit unless we are born again. It is the moment we are born again that the Holy Spirit indwells us and one cannot be baptized with the Holy Spirit unless they are born again.

The eunich first believed with all of his heart and he confessed Jesus is the Christ, so he too was born again before baptism.
The early church baptized those who were born again immediately after conversion.
Jesus said that no man can confess that Jesus is the Messiah except by the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is clear that it is by the blood of Christ that our sins are washed away, not by water. When we are baptized we are identifying with Jesus in His death, burial, and resurrection.
Did you know that baptism is a Jewish tradition? If baptism saves, then how come those in the old testament had to offer sacrifices for their sins? Because, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins and that passage says nothing whatsoever about baptism washing away our sins or causing us to be born again.

Hbr 9:1 Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Hbr 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein [was] the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

Hbr 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Hbr 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein [was] the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Hbr 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Hbr 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God].

Hbr 9:7 But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:

Hbr 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Hbr 9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Hbr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

Hbr 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hbr 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hbr 9:16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hbr 9:17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hbr 9:18 Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.

Hbr 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Hbr 9:20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Hbr 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hbr 9:23 [It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Hbr 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Hbr 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Hbr 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Hbr 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

[jbenjesus]

This is long, but well worth the read.

You asked as to where did this Eunuch come to the understanding, as to water baptism , when he saw water.

False teachings were being taught "in the temple". The apostles were "not" teaching in the temple.

Everyone, please take the time to read in Acts where the apostles were preaching in the temple. This person is speaking grave error. Acts 3 says Peter and John went up to the temple to pray and ended up preaching. In Acts 5:20 the angel of the Lord commanded the apostles to “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” In Acts 5:21 we see them obey and do exactly that. Acts 5:42 emphatically states, “And daily in the temple , and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. ” The apostles did not cease to preach and teach in the temple.

This command was not only for Peter and the rest of the apostles, but also for Paul, an apostle, and his company (not trying to separate the two). Acts 21:27-30, “And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple:”

Acts 26:19-21, “Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.”

All that you read hereafter is grandiose assumption your part:

He went to Jerusalem to worship at the temple in Jerusalem. In verse 28 it tells us that he was returning from his time of worship in Jerusalem. Then we understand that from the scriptures, he did not understand what he was reading. Then from that point Philip started teaching him about Jesus Christ.

The "water baptism" which was being taught in the temple, and not by the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ, is where he got the idea from. Where was Philip and the disciples and apostles of Jesus Christ at this time ? I will guarantee you that they were not in Jerusalem, because of Saul (Paul) . Just read verse one of this same chapter we are talking about -- Acts 8:1 - 5. Ask yourself as to whom was still left in Jerusalem at this very time, in which this Eunuch went to Jerusalem to worship ? ? If you do not come up with false teachers, then there is something wrong with your ability to read what is written !

You could not have spoken more eloquently of yourself (precisely descriptive) when you said this, “You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole in your explanations.”

The simplest assumption to make is that Phillip himself mentioned water baptism to the eunuch. Phillip went around baptizing in Jesus’ name so that is not a farfetched assumption to thing that Phillip told him of water baptism in Jesus' name.

If you would please take a closer look at Acts 8:37 & 38 & 39 , you will notice that your explanation does not line up verse by verse with the record in these verses ! Verse 37 was not in any way a part of the water baptism ! But you decided to make it seem that way in your mind. "After" verse 37 the Eunuch told the driver of the chariot to stop. "Not" Philip ! !

Why did the eunuch and Phillip get in the water? To take a bath together? No! So he could get baptized in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins. Who cares who told the driver to stop? What difference does that make?

It says, “he” by the way. Even if your argument were correct, if the eunuch was wrong in seeking baptism because he was taught wrong in the temple by false teachers (as you assume) why didn’t Phillip correct him? Hmmmm….. Don’t think so.

You said that "we" are talking about water baptism. That is not true, we are talking about whether or not water baptism is necessary for salvation, and it is not ! ! Nor was it taught by the apostles or disciples of Jesus Christ "after" the day of pentecost ! < That is a fact that can not be disputed !

Well I dispute it and have given substantial scriptural evidence for it. If everyone wants to discard the scritpures that plainly testify contrary to their opinion, that is there choice.

If this is true, then throw out repentance and the baptism in the Spirit being necessary. You can risk it all by picking and choosing what you want to comply too, but a person that truly loves God will come to Him on His terms and not make conditions.

There is only one valid response for obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. Obeying God is not a self-righteous work to obtain salvation.

John baptized with water, but his baptism never gave salvation unto anyone. It was for the "remission" of sins. And his baptism preceeded the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, which was the "forgivness" of sins.

In Luke this is said of John the Baptist, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

John the Baptist did not separate repentance, from baptism in water for the remission of sins, or from the One who would come after Him to baptize in Spirit and fire. John the Baptist could not apply this last part himself. So he alluded to it. Jesus completed all to fulfill all righteousness.

And , in the unity of the Spirit, there is only "one" baptism - Ephesians 4:5

Agreed. There is one baptism in Jesus’ eyes. John 3:3-5, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

This baptism consists of the water and the Spirit. Repentance –death-, water baptism in Jesus’ name (into the body of His death) –death and burial-, and baptism in the Spirit (into the body of His resurrected life) are all essential in appropriating for ourselves the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (the gospel).

 

[Hervey]

Hi J:

You can not make false claims with your misuse of scipture and think that others will believe what you say !

Act 3 and Acts 5 and the other verses you use are "not" Acts chapter 8 ! Those other verses are different periods of time. And I can tell that you "did not" read Acts 8:1 which proves that there were no disciples nor Apostles in Jerusalem at the time that this Eunuch went into Jerusalem !

It's is a fact, and yet you still deny the facts !

Philip "never" mentions water baptism, and that is what you seem to be very good at, "assumptions" !

Born of water and of the Spirit -- no mention of water baptism in this verse either !! Were you not born of water , the first time ? If so, then I can believe that you were not hatched from an egg. Then I can also believe that you are looking forward to the second birth = born again. But not like the first birth, which was water and blood, this second birth is water and of the Spirit. Reason ? Jesus Christ shed his blood for us !

Have a good day in the Lord

Love IN Christ - Hervey

 

[jbenjesus]

Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, before baptism and we cannot receive the Holy Spirit unless we are born again. It is the moment we are born again that the Holy Spirit indwells us and one cannot be baptized with the Holy Spirit unless they are born again.

The Holy Spirit indwells a person by the baptism in the Spirit. That is the moment He takes residence. You separate what is not separably in God's eyes.

The eunich first believed with all of his heart and he confessed Jesus is the Christ, so he too was born again before baptism.

If this were true than any man that has ever said Jesus is the Christ is born again – “easy believism”.

Titus 3:5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

What did the washing of regeneration refer to? Water baptism in Jesus’ name perhaps? What did renewing of the Holy Spirit refer to? Baptism in the Spirit perhaps?

The Bible is clear that it is by the blood of Christ that our sins are washed away, not by water.

Agreed. How do we appropriate the blood that washes away our sins?

Because, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins and that passage says nothing whatsoever about baptism washing away our sins or causing us to be born again.

When we repent and are baptized, in water and in Spirit, we appropriate the work of Jesus Christ on the cross (death), in His burial (water baptism) and in His resurrection (baptism in Spirit).

Did you know that baptism is a Jewish tradition? If baptism saves, then how come those in the old testament had to offer sacrifices for their sins?

Baptism was Jewish in its inception. It was started by John the Baptist (a Jew) and continued with Jesus (a Jew) -who baptized in the Spirit- and continued by His Jewish apostles and any and all believers thereafter that adhered and walked in the teachings of the Jewish apostles.

 

[jbenjesus]

Hi Hervey,

Acts 16:32-34 -And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

I suppose that even when the guard was washing Paul’s stripes, and he got baptized, doesn’t refer to water either? I wonder how he washed Paul’s stripes without water? Hmmm…

I also suppose, in your words, water baptism in Jesus' name is a man-made doctrine?

Act 3 and Acts 5 and the other verses you use are "not" Acts chapter 8 ! Those other verses are different periods of time. And I can tell that you "did not" read Acts 8:1 which proves that there were no disciples nor Apostles in Jerusalem at the time that this Eunuch went into Jerusalem !

If this is how your rationalize away scriptural evidence contrary to your teaching, hey, that's up to you.

I am confident that there is a valid response expected by God to the gospel of Jesus Christ. All the apostles expected it - repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and take the Holy Spirit.

To all who are still in doubt, with all the sincerity of your heart, seek the truth from Jesus and then come to Him on His terms and not your own. Come to Him on His requirements and not the terms of others who never experienced the fulness of salvation. They will tell you that it is unnecessary to repent, just believe. Or that water baptism is unnecessary because it's just an outward reflection of an inward working. Or the baptism in the Spirit is not for today, it's actually of the devil.

Beware.

Follow the teaching and expectations of the Jewish apostles. Because if they were wrong, then we're all lost and most miserably deceived.

 

[Mandy]

I notice you keep saying "In Jesus' name". You are oneness person? Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

sorry but you are wrong, baptism is not necessary for salvation.
We are to be baptized, but it does not cause anyone to be born again.

Paul said that if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in our heart that He rose from the dead we shall be saved.
He could have very easily added baptism in there.