What is "born of water"

[Danthemailman]

And I suppose all of the conversions outlined in the book of Acts had nothing to do with water baptism. And Romans 6:1-11 is not about water baptism. Neither is 1 Peter 3:21, correct?

There are a handful of verses in the Bible that certain people try to use as proof texts to prove that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, yet 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 prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.

I've heard certain people try to argue that in the Book of Acts, water baptism is always referred to in connection with a conversion.

Here are the instances of conversions in Acts where baptism is mentioned:
2:38
8:12
8:37, 38
9:17-18
10:47-48
16:14
16:30-34
18:8
19:5

Now, here are the accounts in Acts which speak of conversions where baptism is NOT mentioned:
4:4
5:14
9:35
9:42
11:21
11:24
Chapters 13 and 14 -- Paul's first journey -- baptism not mentioned.
13:12
13:43
13:48
14:1
14:21
14:27
17:4
17:12
17:34
19:17-20
28:23, 24

Notice that not once is baptism "specifically mentioned" in the conversions on Paul's first missionary journey. Now don't misunderstand me. I'm saying that baptism was not "eventually" administered, but I am simply denying the false assertion that baptism is "specifically mentioned" in every case or instance of conversions or is absolutely required for salvation. Some converts are not mentioned by name, but others are -- such as Sergius Paul (Acts 13:7, 12), Dionysius and Damaris (Acts 17:34).

*The book of Acts leaves no doubt what the Lord commands us to do in order to be saved (Acts 4:4; 5:14; 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:9; 16:31; 17:12; 17:34; 26:18). We are saved the moment that we BELIEVE (trust, rely) in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.

In regards to Romans 6:3-11, as Greek scholar AT Robertson explains - Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See on "Galatians 3:27" where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. Into his death (ei ton qanaton autou). So here "unto his death," "in relation to his death," which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance. The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin, forward to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave. There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.

Romans 6:4 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Spirit baptism is the reality and water baptism is the picture of the reality.

In 1 Corinthians 10:2, we read - all were "baptized into Moses" in the cloud and in the sea, but this does not mean they were literally water baptized into the body of Moses? NO. So in what sense are we "water baptized into Christ?" In the same sense that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" in regards to "identification" and not placement into the body, as in Spirit baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13).

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now 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). *NOTE: 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.

 

[Danthemailman]

Sorry I can't accept this rationale. If one does not believe in the first place they obviously would not be baptized. It is not necessary to include lack of baptism with lack of belief. It's common sense. Simple logic.

If it's common sense and simple logic, then why are there so many people in various churches who get water baptized, because they believe it secures their salvation?.. yet they DO NOT truly BELIEVE (trust in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation).

There are many people who DON'T truly BELIEVE, yet receive water baptism anyway in various false religions and cults. Some, even in Christian churches that don't have a true understanding of what it means to BELIEVE (Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16) yet profess they do.

*It is necessary to include lack of baptism with lack of belief or mention it alongside of belief in (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) if water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

 

[112358]

There are a handful of verses in the Bible that certain people try to use as proof texts to prove that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, yet 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 prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.

I've heard certain people try to argue that in the Book of Acts, water baptism is always referred to in connection with a conversion.

Here are the instances of conversions in Acts where baptism is mentioned:
2:38
8:12
8:37, 38
9:17-18
10:47-48
16:14
16:30-34
18:8
19:5

Now, here are the accounts in Acts which speak of conversions where baptism is NOT mentioned:
4:4
5:14
9:35
9:42
11:21
11:24
Chapters 13 and 14 -- Paul's first journey -- baptism not mentioned.
13:12
13:43
13:48
14:1
14:21
14:27
17:4
17:12
17:34
19:17-20
28:23, 24

Notice that not once is baptism "specifically mentioned" in the conversions on Paul's first missionary journey. Now don't misunderstand me. I'm saying that baptism was not "eventually" administered, but I am simply denying the false assertion that baptism is "specifically mentioned" in every case or instance of conversions or is absolutely required for salvation. Some converts are not mentioned by name, but others are -- such as Sergius Paul (Acts 13:7, 12), Dionysius and Damaris (Acts 17:34).

*The book of Acts leaves no doubt what the Lord commands us to do in order to be saved (Acts 4:4; 5:14; 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:9; 16:31; 17:12; 17:34; 26:18). We are saved the moment that we BELIEVE (trust, rely) in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.

In regards to Romans 6:3-11, as Greek scholar AT Robertson explains - Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See on "Galatians 3:27" where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. Into his death (ei ton qanaton autou). So here "unto his death," "in relation to his death," which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance. The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin, forward to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave. There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.

Romans 6:4 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Spirit baptism is the reality and water baptism is the picture of the reality.

In 1 Corinthians 10:2, we read - all were "baptized into Moses" in the cloud and in the sea, but this does not mean they were literally water baptized into the body of Moses? NO. So in what sense are we "water baptized into Christ?" In the same sense that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" in regards to "identification" and not placement into the body, as in Spirit baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13).

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now 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). *NOTE: 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.

This is exactly what I mean about the lengths to which one must go in order to remove water baptism as essential to conversion and salvation.

You have entirely missed the point with regard to both the baptisms of Moses and the ark, and the foreshadowing they represent of NT baptism. In both cases it was God that actually saved them, but by divine providence the MODE of that salvation was their faith and obedience to His directions that they do some things through the WATER. Israel descended into the deep on dry ground with a literal ocean surrounding them on all sides, and a cloud of water above them leading the way. The same water both destroyed sin (pharaoh's army) and delivered God's children from oppression. Noah and his family by faith obeyed God's instructions and the same water that wiped sin from the face of the planet saved those who demonstrated obedient faith. You can say it was the ark and not the water all you want, I'll stick with what Peter said about it (the same guy who ordered baptism for the remission of sins in Acts 2 and would not deny Cornelius water AFTER he and his household believed).

Yes, baptism is both physical and spiritual. We don't emerge from the water any different physically than when we went in, but spiritually we are a new creature. It is the time and place where we receive forgiveness of sins, where they are washed away, where and when we are saved, just like Israel and Noah and Paul the apostle. Hence, "He who believes AND is baptized".

 

[Danthemailman]

This is exactly what I mean about the lengths to which one must go in order to remove water baptism as essential to conversion and salvation.

It's called properly harmonizing scripture with scripture in order to reach the correct conclusion on doctrine concerning conversion and salvation. We must not twist passages of scripture in order to patch together a distorted gospel plan. The Bible makes is clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18.36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

You have entirely missed the point with regard to both the baptisms of Moses and the ark, and the foreshadowing they represent of NT baptism. In both cases it was God that actually saved them, but by divine providence the MODE of that salvation was their faith and obedience to His directions that they do some things through the WATER.

As I already explained, 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 (just as believers are not literally saved by the waters of baptisms) Hebrews 11:7 is clear on the point I made about Noah and his household (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: 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.

Israel descended into the deep on dry ground with a literal ocean surrounding them on all sides, and a cloud of water above them leading the way. The same water both destroyed sin (pharaoh's army) and delivered God's children from oppression. Noah and his family by faith obeyed God's instructions and the same water that wiped sin from the face of the planet saved those who demonstrated obedient faith.

Israel was immersed, not in the sea, but "into Moses," indicating their oneness or solidarity with him. Israel was DRY and SAFE as they crossed through the ocean. In contrast, only pharaoh's army came in contact with the water and they all perished. So you are teaching salvation by faith + obedience/works? It certainly appears that way.

You can say it was the ark and not the water all you want, I'll stick with what Peter said about it (the same guy who ordered baptism for the remission of sins in Acts 2 and would not deny Cornelius water AFTER he and his household believed).

It was the ARK that saved Noah and his household, just as we read in Hebrews 11:7. They were saved THROUGH the water, but not literally by the water. *Without the ARK, Noah and his household would have simply drown. I'll stick with what Peter said in Acts 10:43-47 -- believe/receive gift of the Holy Spirit/saved BEFORE water baptism.

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; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

Yes, baptism is both physical and spiritual. We don't emerge from the water any different physically than when we went in, but spiritually we are a new creature. It is the time and place where we receive forgiveness of sins, where they are washed away, where and when we are saved, just like Israel and Noah and Paul the apostle. Hence, "He who believes AND is baptized".

Physical baptism and spiritual baptism are "two distinct" baptisms (Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; 11:16). You seem to confuse the picture (water baptism) with the reality (Spirit baptism). We receive remission of sins the moment that we repent and believe in Jesus for salvation (prior to receiving water baptism - Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:39; 16:31; 20:21; 26:18 etc..).

Israel, Noah and Paul the apostle were all saved through faith apart from works. Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

Noah had already "found grace" (Genesis 6:8), was "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5), and "walked with God" BEFORE he built the ark. His obedience was a DEMONSTRATION of his faith, not the origin of it. Building the ARK demonstrated his faith and saved him and his family (physically) from drowning (Hebrews 11:7).

 

[James Honigman]

Everyone is born of a woman. Where's the need to command it or list it as a requirement for the kingdom of God?

Dear Wordkeeper, our Beloved was giving Nicodemus, and everyone who has ever read the New Testament, a teaching lesson; but Nicodemus was having trouble digesting it. Our Lord goes on to tell him his difficulty in believing earthly things, therefore how could he believe heavenly things? Then He explains that everyone who ascends into heaven must first descend from heaven (John 3.13). In other words, be born of woman. And to answer your post further, not everyone will be born of woman. Satan, and his fallen angels will not be born of woman. Thanks for your comments. James.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Dear Wordkeeper, our Beloved was giving Nicodemus, and everyone who has ever read the New Testament, a teaching lesson; but Nicodemus was having trouble digesting it. Our Lord goes on to tell him his difficulty in believing earthly things, therefore how could he believe heavenly things? Then He explains that everyone who ascends into heaven must first descend from heaven (John 3.13). In other words, be born of woman. And to answer your post further, not everyone will be born of woman. Satan, and his fallen angels will not be born of woman. Thanks for your comments. James.

Oh! He commands EVERYONE who wants to go to heaven must first descend from Heaven? Please clarify if this is what Jesus demands of people who want eternal life, enter the Kingdom of God, because He does demand certain things of such people.

 

[112358]

As I already explained, 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 (just as believers are not literally saved by the waters of baptisms) Hebrews 11:7 is clear on the point I made about Noah and his household (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: 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.

We clearly disagree on what constitutes properly harmonizing scripture. Your semantics game with whether Noah and family were saved "by" or "through" water is weak at best and dangerous at worst. Would they have been saved by or through the water had he not, in faith, obeyed God's command to build the ark? Would Israel have been saved had they not crossed the red sea, in faith, as instructed?

The spiritual operation that occurs when one is baptized (death and burial of the old spirit of sin, resurrection or birth of the new child of God), cannot be separated from the act of obedient faith (immersion in water) with which it is associated. Why was it necessary for Paul to be baptized? Why the urgency from Ananias..."and wash away your sins"? I suppose that was not water baptism?

 

[112358]

I guess the words of the Lord are not enough for most in Mark 16:16, or in Matthew 28:19. I guess the water baptism associated with the conversion of Christians found throughout the book of Acts is not enough.

I guess water baptism only saved Paul. And the eunuch. And the about 3000 on the day of Pentecost who were commanded in response to their question to Peter, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?", to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I guess it only saved the Samaritans (who by the way had not yet received the Spirit), and Simon the Sourcerer, and Cornelius and his household, and Lydia and her household, and the Philippian jailer and his household (who asked the same question of them the Jews asked Peter at Pentecost), and Apollos (who was Godly but only knew of John's baptism, and so was taught the Way more accurately, ergo baptism into Christ), and all the Ephesians (who only knew of John's baptism too, but were baptized into Christ, and only received the Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them).

I guess everywhere else in Acts where people were converted, and baptism is not specifically referenced, they were saved by some other Gospel than the one by which Paul himself was saved by being baptized. I guess everywhere else in all of the epistles, most of which were penned by Paul, it was some other baptism he spoke of than the one by which his own sins were washed away, the one to which he often referred. I guess Peter didn't really mean it when he said the antitype of the great flood which saved Noah, baptism, now saves us. Sorry my friend, it just doesn't add up.

Seek truth folks, and you will find it.

 

[112358]

Another point about Peter, baptism, and Noah. the antitype is not whether the baptism is by or through flood waters or baptismal waters. The antitype is the fact that Noah's salvation by or through flood waters was physical, while ours by or through baptismal waters is spiritual.

 

[aiki]

But when Jesus says "water" could he mean water baptism instead? He doesn't clarify and the word baptism is never used.

But he does clarify:

John 3:5-6
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Seems to me Jesus clarifies perfectly well what he meant. Water=born of the flesh, Spirit=born of the Spirit. "Born of the flesh" or "born of water," then, seems pretty clearly to mean "physical birth."

 

[Wordkeeper]

But he does clarify:

John 3:5-6
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Seems to me Jesus clarifies perfectly well what he meant. Water=born of the flesh, Spirit=born of the Spirit. "Born of the flesh" or "born of water," then, seems pretty clearly to mean "physical birth."

John said i baptise you into/with water but he that comes will baptise you into/with fire and the Holy Spirit.

He is talking about a corrective baptism that he uses to relink circumcised Jews to the covenant of justice mercy and faithfulness, and another baptism that upgrades the covenant to a justifying covenant.

 

[aiki]

John said i baptise you into/with water but he that comes will baptise you into/with fire and the Holy Spirit.

THe verses I quoted aren't from John but from Jesus. And, as I pointed out, Jesus explains what he means by "water and the Spirit" in the very next verse. How you get "corrective baptism" from "born of the flesh" and "born of water" is beyond me. I'm going to let Jesus explain himself - as he does quite well in the passage - rather than interpret his words in your...peculiar fashion.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The text seems to contrast the flesh and the spirit, natural birth and spirit birth and keeping with these contrasts water would represents the flesh or the natural (compare v5 with v6). Water is traditionally considered part of the birthing experience and this perspective lends itself to expressions like "water breaking". The "water" is amniotic fluid and the "breaking" is the amniotic sac rupturing but we still call it "water" and so did ancient cultures.

This is so obviously the meaning that Ray Charles could see it.

But when Jesus says "water" could he mean water baptism instead?

No.

Anyone truly born again and inhabited by the Spirit of God can see that.

But if it's water baptism is this an example of Jesus requiring it along with the spirit to be born again?

It isn't.

If it were - Jesus would have had the thief on the cross take down and baptized before he died in order that he could be with Him in the Kingdom. He didn't.

Paul would have been sent to baptize as well as preach the gospel in order to get people saved. He wasn't.

This thread contains examples of those who have ears to hear the obvious and those who do not.

"Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” Luke 8:18

Those who strain the passage to make it speak of water baptism wind up believing and preaching another gospel - one which in reality is no gospel at all.

 

[Danthemailman]

We clearly disagree on what constitutes properly harmonizing scripture.

We certainly do. I have already demonstrated how I properly harmonize scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. What I continuously see those who teach salvation by water baptism do is distort and pervert passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" their so called gospel plan.

Your semantics game with whether Noah and family were saved "by" or "through" water is weak at best and dangerous at worst.

Says you.

Would they have been saved by or through the water had he not, in faith, obeyed God's command to build the ark? Would Israel have been saved had they not crossed the red sea, in faith, as instructed?

Did Noah find grace before or after he built the ark? Was Noah a preacher of righteousness before of after he built the ark? Once again, his obedience was a demonstration of his faith and not the origin of it. If Noah would have refused to build the ark, then he would have demonstrated a lack of faith, but that was not the case. He believed God. Israel would have been subdued by pharaoh's army if they refused to cross the red sea, but that was not the case. Did the Lord ask you to build an ark or cross the red sea in order to become saved? NO. Did He ask you to believe in Christ? YES. (John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 etc..).

The spiritual operation that occurs when one is baptized (death and burial of the old spirit of sin, resurrection or birth of the new child of God), cannot be separated from the act of obedient faith (immersion in water) with which it is associated.

False. Once again you are confusing the picture (water baptism) with the reality (Spirit baptism) and you also continue to trust in water baptism as the means of your salvation INSTEAD OF TRUSTING IN CHRIST ALONE for salvation.

Why was it necessary for Paul to be baptized? Why the urgency from Ananias..."and wash away your sins"? I suppose that was not water baptism?

So how did baptism "wash away" Paul's sins? Well, it couldn't do this literally, for Christ literally "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26). The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body" (Matthew 26:26). The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the death of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same sense Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins were actually washed away.

Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson explains: As in Romans 6:4-6 where baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. - Acts 22:16 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Our sins are already literally washed away by the blood of Christ when we BELIEVE before water baptism (Romans 3:24-26; Acts 10:43-47). Therefore to take Paul's statement in Acts 22:16 as anything more than a metaphor is to confuse the symbolic rite with what the rite represents.

*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 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 water baptism.

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's unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved. *No scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

In a previous post you mentioned Matthew 28:18-20. We have here a command of Jesus to go and make disciples of all nations, and baptize converts. However, it does not say here that baptism is necessary for salvation. The same command also includes the clause "teaching them to observe ALL things that Jesus has commanded," yet you brush that aside and only focus on baptism.

 

[Danthemailman]

I guess the words of the Lord are not enough for most in Mark 16:16, or in Matthew 28:19. I guess the water baptism associated with the conversion of Christians found throughout the book of Acts is not enough.

I guess the words of the Lord are not enough for you in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. In Mark 16:16, it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism, just as we see in John 3:18. *Hermeneutics. Go and make disciples of all nations and baptize converts (Matthew 28:19) does not equate to whoever is not water baptized will not be saved. Just ask the thief on the cross.

I guess water baptism only saved Paul. And the eunuch. And the about 3000 on the day of Pentecost who were commanded in response to their question to Peter, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?", to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I guess it only saved the Samaritans (who by the way had not yet received the Spirit), and Simon the Sourcerer, and Cornelius and his household, and Lydia and her household, and the Philippian jailer and his household (who asked the same question of them the Jews asked Peter at Pentecost), and Apollos (who was Godly but only knew of John's baptism, and so was taught the Way more accurately, ergo baptism into Christ), and all the Ephesians (who only knew of John's baptism too, but were baptized into Christ, and only received the Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them).

None of them were literally saved by water baptism, but through faith. I already explained Acts 2:38 to you in post #64 and properly harmonized scripture with scripture, but unfortunately, I can see that the truth went right over your head.

In Acts 8:20, Peter answered - "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Does that sound like "saved" to you? I see doubt about the legitimacy of Simon's conversion. There is no sign of repentance. He even wanted to buy the gift of God with money! Simon followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. 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".

In Acts 19:2, Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed and their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith, they were then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was not the case in Acts 2 and Acts 10). It did signify their inclusion into the church. Apostles were also present when the Samaritans (chapter 8) were included. God's purpose was to emphasize unity in the church - exception, not the rule in Acts chapter 8 and chapter 19.

In Acts 16:31, the answer to "what must I do to be saved" (vs. 30) was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.. Not believe and get baptized and you will be saved. Water baptism followed their faith and conversion. In Acts 11:17, we see that these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:43-47). *See how this fits together perfectly?!

I guess everywhere else in Acts where people were converted, and baptism is not specifically referenced, they were saved by some other Gospel than the one by which Paul himself was saved by being baptized.

Salvation by water baptism is NOT the Gospel, but is a "different" gospel. The Gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). To BELIEVE the Gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.

I guess everywhere else in all of the epistles, most of which were penned by Paul, it was some other baptism he spoke of than the one by which his own sins were washed away, the one to which he often referred. I guess Peter didn't really mean it when he said the antitype of the great flood which saved Noah, baptism, now saves us. Sorry my friend, it just doesn't add up.

The truth does not add up to the natural man because he is spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). In 1 Peter 3:20, Peter had just spoken about the ark; he goes on to say that there is a LIKE FIGURE, or a similar figure, which is baptism. The Greek word for "figure" is "antitupon." Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, defines the word as "a corresponding type." He says, "It is not a case of type and antitype but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type." (Vol. 2, page 96). Cremer's Lexicon says the word signifies an "image or similitude." Thayer's Lexicon defines it as "a thing resembling another."

Baptism is a symbol of salvation in that it depicts Christ's death, burial and resurrections and our identification with Him in these experiences. In reality, believers are saved by what baptism symbolizes--Christ's death and resurrection, but we are not literally saved/justified/accounted as righteous by getting water baptized. Period.

Seek truth folks, and you will find it.

Yes they will IF they honestly seek the truth, just as I did several years ago when I received Christ through faith. Praise God!

*It's the blood of Christ that has the power to remove sins, not plain, ordinary H2O. Now if you can only come to understand that our sins are forgiven when we BELIEVE (Acts 10:43-47; Romans 3:24-26) BEFORE we are water baptized. The Bible teaches that we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and justified by faith (Romans 5:1). People who are saved and justified are not lost and still in need of having their sins literally washed away. Also, faith precedes water baptism. If we are saved and justified at the point of faith, then we don't need to comply with any further conditions to have our sins forgiven and literally washed away.

*In Acts 10:43 we see that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall receive REMISSION OF SINS. What happened to baptism? *In Romans 3:24-26, we see that: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare His righteousness for the REMISSION OF SINS that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which BELIEVES IN JESUS. What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

 

[Wordkeeper]

THe verses I quoted aren't from John but from Jesus. And, as I pointed out, Jesus explains what he means by "water and the Spirit" in the very next verse. How you get "corrective baptism" from "born of the flesh" and "born of water" is beyond me. I'm going to let Jesus explain himself - as he does quite well in the passage - rather than interpret his words in your...peculiar fashion.

The Jews circumcised themselves into the Abrahamic Covenant, believing that they would receive the promise to Abraham, to receive the privilege to become blessings to the world, because they believed the seed of Abraham was identified by circumcision.

Not so said Paul. The seed was singular, so it was Christ who would become a blessing, and believers would only be blessings by being IN Christ. And the true descendants of Abraham were identified by faith, so being IN Christ would be possible only by being faithful. They had to observe not only the minor points of the Law, circumcision and dietary laws, but also the weightier points: justice. mercy and faithfulness.

Paul called the attempts by Jews to usurp the role of Christ "seeking a righteousness of their own" instead of "seeking the righteousness of God", Christ. He compared it to Sarah trying to pre empt God's promise by using Hagar, instead of waiting for Isaac to be given by the Holy Spirit.

Carson calls the manoevers of the Jews, Covenantal Nomism.

Covenantal nomism?
A comparative review of Sanders and Carson et al

Quote
Qumran regarded Judaism as a whole as apostate, so it became necessary to re-enter the covenant by joining the sect.

rabbisaul.com

 

[112358]

Just ask the thief on the cross.

The thief on the cross died under the old covenant. We live under and are subject to the new covenant.

 

[112358]

In Acts 16:31, the answer to "what must I do to be saved" (vs. 30) was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.. Not believe and get baptized and you will be saved. Water baptism followed their faith and conversion. In Acts 11:17, we see that these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:43-47). *See how this fits together perfectly?!

Yes, I see quite clearly how this fits together perfectly. Just like Paul, when Cornelius and his household believed, even AFTER they received the Holy Spirit just like the apostles did at Pentecost, there was something remaining they apparently needed to do to become Christians. 100% aligned with Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19.

You can do all the exegetical gymnastics necessary to removed baptism from NT conversion, but it is still there. It will not go away.

 

[Danthemailman]

The thief on the cross died under the old covenant. We live under and are subject to the new covenant.

Typical argument from those who attend the church of Christ, yet they will also say that "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) BEFORE the cross means that water baptism obtains the remission of sins.

In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water for (eis) repentance.. Now was this baptism "for" (in order to obtain) repentance or "for" (in regards to/on the basis) of repentance? People do not get water baptized in order to repent but because they already repented.

Before the cross - "..baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

After the cross - "Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). I'm hearing the same message. *Baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they received when they repented.

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; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony.

 

[112358]

Also, faith precedes water baptism. If we are saved and justified at the point of faith, then we don't need to comply with any further conditions to have our sins forgiven and literally washed away.

Right. Got it. That was only necessary for Paul, those at Pentecost, and the armies of people who were lining up to be baptized throughout Acts. The eunuch practically begged to be baptized at the earliest opportunity. Apparently he thought it was pretty important.