Baptism

[Guest tiggr]

Shiloh, I would like to see your explanation of the following verses if you dont mind. Also if baptism is a work then wouldnt repentance be a work because it is a turninng away from sin, it is a decision to no longer commit sin

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

KJV

John 3:5

5 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.

KJV

Acts 2:38

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

KJV

Acts 10:48-11:1

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

KJV

Acts 22:16

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the LordKJV

Rom 6:3-4

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

KJV

Gal 3:27

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

KJV

Col 2:11-12

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

KJV

1 Peter 3:20-21

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

KJV

So if you would please explain these scriptures as to how baptism is of no importance. Also could we not take the same attitude toward repenting that you have taken toward baptism, there would be no difference wouldnt that make salvation into works and so it would no longer be free? After all salvation only requires one to believe.

What makes salvation free is that Jesus took our place on the cross we should have been the ones that went through that but He did it for us and made it possible to have salvation.

[sagz4Christ]

So if you would please explain these scriptures as to how baptism is of no importance.

One more time........

Absolutely noone here is saying that baptism is not important. That is you reading what you want into what we who hold a different view than you are saying.

Let me clarify for you.....

BAPTISM IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE BELIEVER!!!

Having said that....let us move on to greater things...not laying again the foundation.

Where this deate gets it's fire from is the view that baptism is required for salvation. Let me say that another way.....

You are of the mind that baptism is required for us to get to heaven.

The other view is that baptism is a physical evidence of what happened spiritually. Much the same way our works are physical evidence of what happened in our hearts.....a.k.a. spiritually. This is why James can say faith without works is dead. If you don't have the works....you don't have the faith. That is how Paul can say we are saved by grace through faith, not of works.

Again, works, or baptism (not the same thing here....just two examples) is the physical manifestation of what happened to us spiritually, which is where the important things are.

I would appreciate if you quit saying that we think baptism isn't of any importance.

Onemoretime, for the record......

BAPTISM IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE!!!

~sagz..................for Christ

[Guest Bunky]

So if you would please explain these scriptures as to how baptism is of no importance.

One more time........

Absolutely noone here is saying that baptism is not important. That is you reading what you want into what we who hold a different view than you are saying.

Let me clarify for you.....

BAPTISM IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE BELIEVER!!!

Having said that....let us move on to greater things...not laying again the foundation.

Where this deate gets it's fire from is the view that baptism is required for salvation. Let me say that another way.....

You are of the mind that baptism is required for us to get to heaven.

The other view is that baptism is a physical evidence of what happened spiritually. Much the same way our works are physical evidence of what happened in our hearts.....a.k.a. spiritually. This is why James can say faith without works is dead. If you don't have the works....you don't have the faith. That is how Paul can say we are saved by grace through faith, not of works.

Again, works, or baptism (not the same thing here....just two examples) is the physical manifestation of what happened to us spiritually, which is where the important things are.

I would appreciate if you quit saying that we think baptism isn't of any importance.

Onemoretime, for the record......

BAPTISM IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE!!!

~sagz..................for Christ

sagz, if I may, I'd like to ask a question!

How long have you debated the *importance* of water baptism and that it is not necessary for salvation?

If you choose not to answer, :x: that is just fine.

Bunky

[sagz4Christ]

sagz, if I may, I'd like to ask a question!

How long have you debated the *importance* of water baptism and that it is not necessary for salvation?

If you choose not to answer, :x: that is just fine.

Bunky

I am sure you have a reason for asking, though I cannot for the life of me figure out what that reason is. I don't see how that is relevant to the topic at hand.

Though I do see you still don't believe that I am saying baptism is important. I wonder why that is.......

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, I would like to see your explanation of the following verses if you dont mind. Also if baptism is a work then wouldnt repentance be a work because it is a turninng away from sin, it is a decision to no longer commit sin

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

KJV

John 3:5

5 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.

KJV

Acts 2:38

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

KJV

Acts 10:48-11:1

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

KJV

Acts 22:16

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the LordKJV

Rom 6:3-4

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

KJV

Gal 3:27

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

KJV

Col 2:11-12

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

KJV

1 Peter 3:20-21

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

KJV

So if you would please explain these scriptures as to how baptism is of no importance. Also could we not take the same attitude toward repenting that you have taken toward baptism, there would be no difference wouldnt that make salvation into works and so it would no longer be free? After all salvation only requires one to believe.

What makes salvation free is that Jesus took our place on the cross we should have been the ones that went through that but He did it for us and made it possible to have salvation.

Repentance is not a work, because it is the response of the human heart by faith towards the Gospel. It is not a physical activity. You do not use bodily action and effort to repent. Baptism conversely is a physical action and requires physical effort to perform. It is no difference in essence to taking communion, giving to the poor, being kind to strangers, looking after widows and orphans, tithing, reading the Bible, going to church, etc. All of these things are good works, but are not effecacious in whole or in part as far salvation is concerned.

Now, I have not said that Baptism is of no importance. Just because I do not believe that it is efficacious towards salvation, does not mean that I believe that baptism is "of no importance." It is a command that we should follow. I simply do not believe that it contributes to getting anyone saved.

Now on to the Scritures you provided

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

KJV

This verse is often quoted as supporting the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, a more careful analysis of the verse shows that it teaches nothing of the sort.

While the first clause says that all who both believe and are baptized will be saved, it does not say that all who neither believe nor are baptized will not be saved. In other words, the clause does not exclude any group, while it does tell of a group of people who will be saved, namely, those who both believe and are baptized. But the second clause negates one group: those who do not believe will not be saved. There is no negation of the group of those who believe but are not baptized. Thus, while the verse as a whole does teach that belief is essential to salvation, it does not teach that baptism is.

While this does not prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it does mean that this verse cannot be used to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation.

John 3:5

5 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.

KJV

If "born of water" means water baptism, then this verse proves that it is necessary to be baptized in water to be saved. About that we can be sure. But I will give several reasons why "born of water" cannot mean "baptism in water."

First, at the time that Christ said this, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. There was no such thing at that time as baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It therefore would have been impossible for Nicodemus to understand "born of water" as referring to water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Also, this must be seen in the context of verse 6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and of verse 7: "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" This shows that being "born again" (see also verse 3) is being "born of the Spirit." Being "born again" cannot be being "born of the flesh" (verse 6), so it must be being "born of the Spirit."

If "born of water" meant water baptism, then verse 5 would contradict verse 6, which requires for salvation only being "born of the Spirit," while verse 5 would require being baptized in water and being born of the Spirit. But if being "born of water" does not mean water baptism, and instead is a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit," then verse 5 does not contradict verse 6.

There is good reason to believe that "born of water" could be simply a figurative way of saying, "born of the Spirit." The word "water" in connection with salvation, the covenant, regeneration, rebirth, is often used in Scripture as a symbol of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

KJV

In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. So then it would read, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of, or because of the remission of sins,..."

It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

Acts 10:48-11:1

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

KJV

This verse says nothing about baptismal regeneration. It just says that they were commanded to be baptized.

This text is often called upon by baptismal regenerationalists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. But certainly there is nothing inherent in it which proves this. We all agree that we are commanded to be baptized, and that neglect or rejection of baptism is sin. But some hold this sin to be unforgivable, since one cannot be saved unless one is baptized. I will contend, on the other hand, that this is not the "unforgivable sin," and that the one who commits it, while yet having faith in Christ, is forgiven of this sin and saved anyway.

First, the mere fact that we are commanded to be baptized, and that is all this verse says, cannot show that baptism is necessary for salvation. We are also commanded not to sin. Does that mean that if we sin, we cannot be saved? But this would be nonsense since in Christ we have forgiveness of our sins. Therefore it is possible to disobey commands of the Lord and yet be saved.

There is another reason for rejecting this verse as a "proof" of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Those who claim that it is such a proof must ignore or seriously misconstrue the context. Peter was speaking to Cornelius and his friends, and then he turned to the other Christians around and said:

Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? (verse 47) Peter said that this group of people had received the Holy Spirit "just as we have." He acknowledged that these people were already saved. Just as truly as Peter and the Christians with him had received the Holy Spirit, so Cornelius and his friends had received the Holy Spirit. Having received the Holy Spirit was proof that they were already saved, as Romans 8:9-16 shows.

Those who have received the Holy Spirit are the children of God. They are "born of the Spirit." They are "born again." They are guaranteed their inheritance (Romans 8:1 1; II Corinthians 1:22, 5:5; Ephesians 1:14). They are, in fact, saved. Cornelius and his friends were saved before Peter commanded them to be baptized.

Acts 10:48, therefore, does not prove that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Acts 22:16

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the LordKJV

First, a careful study of the Greek text shows that "wash away" is coordinated with "calling." That is, it is by "calling on the name of the Lord" that Paul was to "wash away" his sins, not by being baptized.

Even the English does not say, "be baptized washing away your sins," or "wash away your sins being baptized," but rather "be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This shows that washing away the sins and being baptized were separate acts, and that the washing away of the sins was done by calling on the name of the Lord.

Second, being baptized was not a part of the Gospel which Paul preached. We know this for two reasons. First, Paul carefully distinguished baptizing from preaching the Gospel in I Corinthians, chapter one. There he wrote:

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel... (verses 14-17a)

Baptism, then, cannot be part of the Gospel. The Gospel is the "power of God to salvation" (Romans 1:16). It tells us what is necessary to know in order to be saved. Paul left baptism out of the Gospel. Therefore Paul did not consider baptism necessary to salvation. It is possible, by isolating this verse from its context and from other New Testament teaching on the subject, to take this as teaching baptismal regeneration. But again, this is only one way to understand it. It has already been shown that this would not fit the context, it does not fit the most clear understanding of the grammar, and most importantly, it is contrary to Paul's entire teaching of what the Gospel is (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10; I Corinthians 1:17; Galatians 1:11-12). Possibility must not be confused with either probability or actuality.

Rom 6:3-4

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

KJV

First, the Greek word here translated "into" would be translated better "in" or "unto." Thus A.T. Robertson wrote regarding Romans 6:3:

Better, "were baptized unto Christ or in Christ." The translation "into" makes Paul say that the union with Christ was brought to pass by means of baptism, which is not his idea, for Paul was not a sacramentarian.... Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See Galatians 3:27 where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. "Into his death"... So here "unto his death," "in relation to his death," which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance.

Therefore we see that the Greek grammar itself does not teach that the baptism here spoken of is actually the means of getting "into Christ."

Second, Paul is speaking in figures and symbols throughout the first half of this chapter. Would the proponents of baptismal regeneration take verse 6 ("our old man was crucified with Him") literally, or will they recognize it as symbolic? It is symbolic, and it paints a vivid picture of dying to self and being alive to Christ. But this gives us precedent to interpret "baptism" in this passage as symbolic, too.

Another key to the fact that this passage is to be interpreted symbolically is verse 11, which reads:

Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All along, it is this "reckoning" that is emphasized. The "also" tells us that we reckon ourselves not only dead to sin, but also reckon other things of ourselves. These are expressed in the two symbols of being baptized in Christ and being crucified with Him (verses 3, 4, 6).

Thus Paul is simply using baptism as a symbol to paint a vivid picture of what happens when one is identified with Christ: that is, when one has "put on Christ," and has been "born again." Baptism gives an excellent picture of what it is to become a Christian, for it pictures the burial and resurrection. But the baptism itself is not that burial or resurrection. As Robertson put it, "[A] symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality." [12] Baptism, therefore, symbolized identification with Christ.

Gal 3:27

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

KJV

First, we have already seen that Paul often used "baptism" as a symbol for identification. This usage here would fit the meaning of the text. If it is symbolic of "identification," the meaning would be as follows: "For as many of you as have been identified in Christ have put on Christ." We have good reason from Paul's other writing, as shown previously, to take this figuratively, and it fits the context that way. Therefore the figurative is the most likely meaning.

Second, the verb in Greek translated "put on" has the meaning of putting on a badge or uniform of service like that of a soldier. According to A.T. Robertson:

This verb is common in the sense of putting on garments (literally and metaphorically as here). See further in Paul (Romans 13:14; Colossians 3:9f; Ephesians 4:22-24, 6:11, 14). In I Thessalonians 5:8 Paul speaks of "putting on the breastplate of righteousness." He does not here mean that one enters into Christ and so is saved by means of baptism after the teaching of the mystery religions, but just the opposite. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by circumcision or by baptism. But baptism was the public profession and pledge, the soldier's sacramentum, oath of fealty to Christ, taking one's stand with Christ, the symbolic picture of the change wrought by faith already (Romans 6:4-6).

In other words, even if "baptism" is taken as referring to water baptism, the language which Paul uses shows it to be an outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly. The baptizing itself then would be an entirely outward event, with no spiritual effect, but only a spiritual significance. Hebrews 9:13ff reminds us that no outward ceremony has a real effect on the heart.

Third, the word "into" in the King James Version would, again by Robertson's principle quoted earlier, be better translated "in" or "unto," meaning "in reference to" Christ, thus showing that the baptism itself is not the means of getting to be "in Christ."

Fourth, Galatia stood in the middle of an area infested with the mystery religions, and these bodies made much of outward acts. Paul was refuting the teachings of these religions, and so there is the initial probability that he did not want "baptism" in Galatians 3:27 to be taken as the literal, outward act. Baptism in water was a common initiatory rite in the mystery religions, and Paul knew that from his own travels in the area. It would be extremely unlikely that he would speak of it in the same way they did.

Fifth, it is by the receiving of the Holy Spirit that we know we are saved. In fact, those who have received Him are saved (Romans 8:1-16). But Paul in Galatians 3:2-3 points out specifically that it is by faith that the Galatians received the Holy Spirit. To say then that Galatians 3:27 teaches baptism as the means of regeneration would make it contradict verses 2 and 3.

Sixth, in verse 6 Paul quotes the fact that Abraham was justified when he believed God: that is, when he had faith. But Genesis 15:6 shows that this justification came before any physical act, specifically that of circumcision. Now the fact that Abraham was justified by faith without works is proof that he was saved (Romans 8:29-30; cf. Romans 3:1-5, 28). Circumcision is the Old Testament counterpart to baptism in the New Testament (see discussion of Colossians 2:12 later). Therefore we can be saved before and even completely without being baptized in water. (The use of Abraham as an example of the manner of our justification is supported in Galatians 3-28-29, and by Paul's whole argument in Romans 3-4).

Baptism in Galatians 3:27 does not refer to physical baptism in water, but is figurative of our identification with Christ which is achieved by faith (John 1:12-13), as was the case in I Corinthians 12:13 and Romans 6:3-4. It cannot be used as proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. But even if it did refer to water baptism, it would not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation, for it specifically speaks of it as an outward sign. We know that outward signs do not affect the heart's relation to God, and we know that there are those who were saved before they were baptized in water (Cornelius and his friends, Acts 10) or were circumcised (Abraham, Genesis 15).

Col 2:11-12

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

KJV

First, these verses are frequently quoted out of context. The entire context runs from verse 10 through verse 17:

. . . You are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

[sagz4Christ]

Wow!!!

I can't add anything to that. Very well said.

But I think I hear a refutation in the wind.......???

[Guest tiggr]

[Guest shiloh357]

So what you are saying is that you have to go to someone elses commentary to get your reply and that they are more able to translate the Bible than the scholars who did so all those years ago looking at the manuscripts.

I do not know everything. You were taught by men in your demoniation that Baptism is required for salvation. We have all been taught by men who are more studied in the Word than we are. I simply do not have all the time in the world to exegete Scripture. I do have to go to work at some point. Do not pretend that you do not use commentaries. Sometimes there are people who can articulate what we are thinking better than we can. To pretend otherwise is just hypocrisy on your part. There is more knowledge now than there was in 16ll. Discoveries have been made that the KJV scholars did not have the ability to take advantage. That being said, I love the KJV. There are no perfect translations, though.

Baptism is also a response to the believing of God's word. Tell a drug addict that it does not take physical effort on his part to turn away from drugs once he has heard the word of God and he will laugh at you.

Getting off of a drug addiction takes a lot of physical effort. That is true. That is a different issue than repentance, though. It takes NO physical effort for a drug addict to repent of his drug abuse. The actual effort applied to getting off drugs speaks to sanctification, not repentance. Santification is the daily process of relinquishing old sinful habits and thoughts. So, you are confusing repentance and sanctification. Baptism is a response to God's Word, true. So is taking communion. Taking communion will not save you. Giving to the poor is an obedient repsonse to God's word too. It will not save you either. Baptism, communion, and generosity, good works that they are have no saving power. Only the blood of Jesus can wash away sins.

First, at the time that Christ said this, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. There was no such thing at that time as baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It therefore would have been impossible for Nicodemus to understand "born of water" as referring to water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Yes they were. They were being baptised by John unto repentance, and how would you know what Nicodemus could or could not understand I think Jesus was the judge of that.

Notice in the above statement that the reference is to "Christian baptism." John was NOT baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither was He baptizing the Name of Jesus. Christianity was not a religion then, so he could not have. So, you could not apply this John the Baptist. Secondly, how could Nicodemus understand "born of water as baptism, when the Jewish concept of Baptism did not include the concept of "born of water." John baptized unto repentance, and that is not the same thing as being "born of water." Baptism had no saving properties in Jewish theology either. It was, again, an outward testimony that the individual had indeed repented in his/her heart and was turning from sin. Since this was done in public, it would constrain the individual to maintain this commitment made in front of many witnesses.

There is good reason to believe that "born of water" could be simply a figurative way of saying, "born of the Spirit."

There is also alot of reasons to believe that it means to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ

Not in it's scriptural context. If water baptism in the name of Jesus had been commanded by Christ, then no one would have understood it that way, until such a command was given. In John chapter 3, there is no reference to anyone being bapized "in the Name of Jesus Christ." You are trying to read into (isogete) Scripture what you are alreay predisposed to believe instead of letting it speak for itself.

In John 8, Jesus used water as a reference to the Holy Spirit. Jesus said:

John 7:37-39

    Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. [38] "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.' " [39] But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism,

UH what you are saying here contradicts what you said earlier and this last part makes no sense, if they were baptised for forgiveness then YES forgiveness, repentance and baptism are connected

It does not contradict anything that was said earlier. They were not baptized for forgiveness. Forgiveness only comes by the blood of Jesus. That is why baptism is parenthetical. Forgiveness precedes baptism. Baptism is a response to the forgiveness already attained. Your obedience does not secure forgiveness, because if it could, Jesus would not have needed to die. No level of obedience that you could ever attain will untainted with your sin. Until you have recieved your glorified body, every action, whether it be baptism, or any other good deed, will be tainted with sin. Therefore, it would never be good enough to contribute to salvation. If you could perform an action that was untainted with sin, you would not need to be saved in the first place. Anything that has the smell of sin, no matter good it is, does not save.

This verse says nothing about baptismal regeneration. It just says that they were commanded to be baptized.

They were commanded to do this why?

Please read the rest of the commentary. Here is some of it.

This text is often called upon by baptismal regenerationalists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. But certainly there is nothing inherent in it which proves this. We all agree that we are commanded to be baptized, and that neglect or rejection of baptism is sin. But some hold this sin to be unforgivable, since one cannot be saved unless one is baptized. I will contend, on the other hand, that this is not the "unforgivable sin," and that the one who commits it, while yet having faith in Christ, is forgiven of this sin and saved anyway.

First, the mere fact that we are commanded to be baptized, and that is all this verse says, cannot show that baptism is necessary for salvation. We are also commanded not to sin. Does that mean that if we sin, we cannot be saved?

Therefore it is possible to disobey commands of the Lord and yet be saved.

So we can simply live the way we want and not worry?

This is an absud question in light of what has been written. It proves that you did not even read what preceded it. As a Christian I can live any way I want to... its just that when I got saved I recieved a whole new set of "want to's." I do not have the same desires for sin that I had before. I was made a new Creation. So yes I can live anyway I want to. I can praise the Lord anytime I want to. I can go to church all I want to. I can watch as many Christian videos as I want. I can have as many Christian friends as I want. I can memorize as much Scripture as I want. I live and do everything that I want to do, and it has not hurt my Christian life one bit.

Even the English does not say, "be baptized washing away your sins," or "wash away your sins being baptized," but rather "be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This shows that washing away the sins and being baptized were separate acts, and that the washing away of the sins was done by calling on the name of the Lord.

So you can see no connection between these two verses

Acts 22:16

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Acts 2:38

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

Read the quote you are responding to. It explains it. Baptism and washing away sins are two separte things. It is in the Greek and English that way.

John 20:23

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them

this was told to the disciples after Jesus was ressurected and was sending them out. How were they to remit someones sins they were only humans.

This is not talking about remission of sins that brings about salvation. It is an entirely different issue. This had to to with legal issues. In the first century, Jewish people brought their disputes to a panel of Judges called the "Bet Din." The Bet Din had the right to settle disputes and prescribe how the injured part was to recompensed. Jesus was speaking of their authority as the new leaders of the Church. It is not unlike what Jesus said ealier when he said "whatsoever you bind (forbid) on earth it is bound in heaven. Whatsoever you loose (permit) on earth is permitted in heaven." Jesus gave them authority to make decisions and rulings for the good of the Christian community. They were going to be the "Bet Din" for the new Messianic community.

Better, "were baptized unto Christ or in Christ." The translation "into" makes Paul say that the union with Christ was brought to pass by means of baptism, which is not his idea,

Third, the word "into" in the King James Version would, again by Robertson's principle quoted earlier, be better translated "in" or "unto," meaning "in reference to" Christ, thus showing that the baptism itself is not the means of getting to be "in Christ."

So this person has some insight into Pauls thoughts and ideas, how did he/ she come to this conclusion. This is no more than someones opinion as to what Paul was saying

No, he is just allowing Paul to speak for himself instead of reading his ideas into Scripture. It is called hermeneutics, or more specifically "exegesis." Your repsonse is typical of those who find something they cannot refute but refuse to weigh it out and see if it has any merit.

Second, since baptism is shown to be the New Testament counterpart to circumcision in the Old Testament, we know that those relations of circumcision to salvation in the Old Testament apply to the relation of baptism to salvation in the New Testament. Circumcision was not necessary for salvation in the Old Testament, for Abraham was saved before he was circumcised

Okay lets look at that

Gen 17:11

1 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Gen 17:13-14

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

KJV

It was something that every male had to have done or else he was cut off

Now look at Moses

Ex 4:24-26

24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

God was going to kill Moses because his son was not circumcised, so if you want to compare baptism with circumcision then that does not work in your favor

Excuse me, YOU are the one who gave the Scripture that compares baptism with circumcision. You provided me with

Col 2:11-12

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

KJV

I assume that since you used this Scripture, you agreed with Paul's comparison. Now you are saying that such a comparison is flawed. You need to make your mind here.

Time does not permit me to go into the multitude of errors in your approach to the above verses, but I will make some points. First of all when Abraham was given circumcision, he was already justified by God. He was already considered righteous 25 years prior. Paul makes that clear in Romans chapter 4. Paul compares circumcision in Colossians with baptism. The one who is "in Christ" is circumcised with a circumcision made "without hands." The parallel usage of circumcision and baptism demands that we understand the "baptism" to be made "without hands" also. Therefore, this cannot be a reference to literal water baptism, but rather a usage of the figure of "baptism" as a picture of dying and rising with Christ, as in Romans 6:3-4. In Romans 4, it says that Abraham was justified while he was uncircumcized. Therefore if baptism is a NT counterpart to circumcision, then we are justified before baptism, not because of it.

Now the physical baptism is "the removal of filth of the flesh" (cf. Hebrews 10:22). But what actually saves is "the answer of a good conscience toward God."

So when we are baptised then we are just taking a bath according to your statement, but according to the Bible it is the remission of sins or the washing away of sins

No, it is a commandment that is a demonstration of the inner transformation that ONLY Christ can accomplish in those who believe.

Hebrews 9:22

    And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The Bible says that remission of sins is by blood, specifically the Blood of Jesus.

[Guest Bunky]

tiggr hang in there! I've seen the "Word of God" spoken of before, in such manner, and it doesn't sway me in the least. In fact it causes me heartache to see it so *manipulated.* :down:

Have a Happy Thanksgiving

Bunky

[Guest shiloh357]

Bunky

In fact it causes me heartache to see it so *manipulated.*

The Word of God is manipulated by people like you who seek to teach another gospel other than the one that Bible teaches. Anytime someone adds works to the finished work of Christ on the cross, they are preaching another gospel. Paul had some scathing remarks for people who do that. The idea that baptism brings about salvation fails every test of scripture, and every rule of hermeneutics. You and Tiggr have had to grasp at every straw to try to hold on to this heresy. I can appeal to true scholarship and all you can do is keep posting the same verses over and over. You do not engage the issue, you just keep up the same tired rant post after post. You are so closed minded, that you will not even entertain the possibility that baptismal regeneration is flawed. I do not even think you actually read what is posted. You just pick some oblique statements I make, and ignore the rest.

You and Tiggr add to the gospel by saying that we need to keep the commandments to be saved. Yet you have not engaged the issue fully. You fail to address the fact that there are over 1,500 commandments, and you have not addressed whether one has to keep all 1,500 to get to heaven. It shows that that you have not thought this out. Either that, or you are hoping that you can change the subject and the issue will just go away. I will keep reminding you of that until you address it.

By teaching that you have to do things to go to heaven you are teaching a grievous error. It is no different than the Judaizers who were teaching the Galatians that they had to be circumcized in order to be saved, in addition to believing Jesus. You are no different than the Judaizers that Paul had to deal with. In fact it is worse, since the Judaisers didnt have the internet to spread their poison as you do.