Baptism purpose Sign of the covenant.

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Yes, Baptism by itself saves no one. As Jesus said, "Ye must be born again."Therefore, Baptism is representative of that dying to the old man of sin and burying him while arising to the new spirtual "rebirth" of life in Christ Jesus. Having one's stony heart "circumcised" without human hands to be sensitive to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit to surrender and Obedience to the Will of the Father.

Thank you for the yes answer.

We've been through this already. It takes all the Scriptures on salvation, not biased filtering of just the ones people like. So baptism 'by itself' saves no one, correct. Baptism along with beliefing Christ, repenting, and confessing Jesus as Lord, Does save.
The rest of what you said has no value. John 3:3-5 that you quoted says nothing about representation. Just like making pretend that John 3:5 has anything to do with representation, I cannot take protestant rhetoric seriously. Show me a scripture that directly negates post resurrection baptism's saving quality and then it'll have value. No indirect scripture that protestants are famous for can make your case.

E R.M., Your: """"Show me a scripture that directly negates post resurrection baptism's saving quality and then it'll have value.""""
-You have said in that acclamation that Jesus in HIS speaking to Nicodemus ""has no value". When Jesus had that conversation---it was pre-crucifixion. There are NO Scriptures pre- or post- Resurrection which indicate that Baptism does the Saving of a person--apart from the blood sacrifice of Jesus..

John 3:3-21 is Jesus' answer to the purpose of Baptism.
3:5, "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."
3:14-15, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life".

When one sees the truth/"light", one comes to the source of Light(of the world) so that their Sins can be "Atoned for" and that is accomplished by the shed blood of Jesus.
It isn't the confession of Sins, the Repenting of those Sins, or the Baptism which saves. The Blood of Jesus is the correct propitiation/Ransom which is acceptable to GOD the Father. Those other things are acknowledged(confession)---the Guilt as a result of disobedience(Repentance), and the Baptism(the new Birth of the water and the Spirit---God as Lord of one's life) which leads to The Father's Grace and the priviledge of entering into the Kingdom of GOD./eternal life.

 

[e.r.m.]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Yes, Baptism by itself saves no one. As Jesus said, "Ye must be born again."Therefore, Baptism is representative of that dying to the old man of sin and burying him while arising to the new spirtual "rebirth" of life in Christ Jesus. Having one's stony heart "circumcised" without human hands to be sensitive to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit to surrender and Obedience to the Will of the Father.




E R.M., Your: """"Show me a scripture that directly negates post resurrection baptism's saving quality and then it'll have value.""""
-You have said in that acclamation that Jesus in HIS speaking to Nicodemus ""has no value". When Jesus had that conversation---it was pre-crucifixion. There are NO Scriptures pre- or post- Resurrection which indicate that Baptism does the Saving of a person--apart from the blood sacrifice of Jesus..

John 3:3-21 is Jesus' answer to the purpose of Baptism.
3:5, "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."
3:14-15, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life".

When one sees the truth/"light", one comes to the source of Light(of the world) so that their Sins can be "Atoned for" and that is accomplished by the shed blood of Jesus.
It isn't the confession of Sins, the Repenting of those Sins, or the Baptism which saves. The Blood of Jesus is the correct propitiation/Ransom which is acceptable to GOD the Father. Those other things are acknowledged(confession)---the Guilt as a result of disobedience(Repentance), and the Baptism(the new Birth of the water and the Spirit---God as Lord of one's life) which leads to The Father's Grace and the priviledge of entering into the Kingdom of GOD./eternal life.

First, let me apologize. I was over the top aggressive on that post. Been going through a lot and I probably took some of that out on you. Very sorry.
Let me re-phrase. What Jesus says has value, but Jesus said nothing about representation in John 3:3-5.

There are NO Scriptures pre- or post- Resurrection which indicate that Baptism does the Saving of a person--apart from the blood sacrifice of Jesus..
Whether it's apart from the Blood of Jesus is not the question. No one disputes that salvation is apart from the blood of Jesus. I'm saying that baptism does not conflict with the blood of Jesus. But whether Baptism does the Saving of a person...
Mark 16:16 says it
1 Peter 3:21 says it
Acts 2:38 says the purpose of baptism is forgiveness of sins, withouit which there is no salvation.
--Post Resurrection.

John 3:3-21 is Jesus' answer to the purpose of Baptism.
3:5, "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."
--Of course. The water being water baptism.

3:14-15, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life".
--Includes belief. No exclusory statement on baptism.

It isn't the Repenting of those Sins, --Luke 13:5
or the Baptism which saves. --1 Peter 3:21
Yes it is. They are not mutually exclusive.

The Blood of Jesus is the correct propitiation/Ransom which is acceptable to GOD the Father.
--Includes the Blood of Jesus. No exclusory statement on baptism.

There is no exclusory statement in the Bible against water baptism for salvation. Only that can disqualify.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, isn't the wrath the result of SIN/Guilt??(Rom.1:18) Wouldn't Repentance for the SIN as GOD has stated/promised/faithful void the "wrath"? (1John 1:9)
Should one "sin again", a confessing and repenting is necessary for Jesus to be our Advocate before the Father again.(1John 2:1)

John goes on the add (1John 3:9), that it isn't necessary to Sin, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
That isn't because GOD will not allow the person to Sin/or will prevent him from doing so, but because the person LOVES GOD and chooses not to Sin.

"Now I am completely dead."
This statement of yours and the others indicates to me that you have fully surrendered your will to be that of the Father in LOVE. Which as Jesus stated, "If ye love me Keep my Commandments(/Decalogue)."

Yes. However our unrighteousness that would have incurred wrath is transformed into righteousness, so that while still in sin we do not come under wrath. Ro 3:21 But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Ro 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction;

Repentance prepares the heart for salvation. A person can't be saved from sin until he wishes to be saved from sin. The salvation from wrath through the attribution of righteouness has already taken place once and for all: Rom 3:25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;
Confession and forgiveness are necessary for a cleansing of the conscience ie removal of guilt.

You are in error. It is because God in me does not sin.

Yes. However, He exercises as much control as He wishes. That may well leave me with free time to do my will. However even in my free time He makes sure I don't stray.

 

[Muffled]

What is the definition of sin for you? Do you have a handy list or is it just arbitrary? What do you think of 1 John 3:4? "Sin is lawlessness". What law? What lawlessness?

Jesus is my lawgiver. What He wills is my law. If He wants me to go to Argentina, that is a law for me. It may not be a law for another person. If I don't go it is a sin (of disobedience),

 

[Muffled]

Thank you for the yes answer.

We've been through this already. It takes all the Scriptures on salvation, not biased filtering of just the ones people like. So baptism 'by itself' saves no one, correct. Baptism along with beliefing Christ, repenting, and confessing Jesus as Lord, Does save.
The rest of what you said has no value. John 3:3-5 that you quoted says nothing about representation. Just like making pretend that John 3:5 has anything to do with representation, I cannot take protestant rhetoric seriously. Show me a scripture that directly negates post resurrection baptism's saving quality and then it'll have value. No indirect scripture that protestants are famous for can make your case.

More or less. Baptism does save a person from the sin of disobedience since Baptism is commanded by Jesus. However an already saved person wouldn't be likely to disobey this command.

 

[e.r.m.]

More or less. Baptism does save a person from the sin of disobedience since Baptism is commanded by Jesus. However an already saved person wouldn't be likely to disobey this command.

Oximoron since salvation comes at water baptism. Plus there is no command in the Bible that is instructed to be followed "because it's a command". Denying oneself is commanded by Jesus, Loving one another as Jesus loved us is commanded by Jesus, Make disciples of all nations is commanded by Jesus. All of these commands have reasons attached to them, not solely for obedience sake. The reason attached to baptism is forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38. Baptism solely for obedience sake doesn't exist. That's a protestant lingo thing.

 

[sincerly]

First, let me apologize. I was over the top aggressive on that post. Been going through a lot and I probably took some of that out on you. Very sorry.
Let me re-phrase. What Jesus says has value, but Jesus said nothing about representation in John 3:3-5........................


The Blood of Jesus is the correct propitiation/Ransom which is acceptable to GOD the Father.
--Includes the Blood of Jesus. No exclusory statement on baptism.

There is no exclusonry statement in the Bible against water baptism for salvation. Only that can disqualify.

No apology to me was needed; what you expressed was against the scriptures.
Representation is, indeed, seen in vs.8 concerning the Spirit and the wind. And vs.14 the lifting up of the serpent and Jesus being lifted up.

"Representation" is what much of Jesus sayings are involved it----"Parables".

E R. M., think about it for just a moment, Gal. 2:21, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

The "Believer" is trading a clothing which is "represented as 'filthy rags'" for Jesus
"Robe of Righteousness" so that he may stand before the Father GOD Redeemed.

As far as "No exclusionary statements concerning baptism," There are thousands of other things that meet that criteria-----but still have no merit to SAVE a person.
er.m., Your """""
The Blood of Jesus is the correct propitiation/Ransom which is acceptable to GOD the Father.
--Includes the Blood of Jesus.""""" was Correct until you added the "exclusionary" nonsense.

Not to go on a tanget, but your argument in the reverse is one of the "false reasons" for the change of Sabbath from Saturday(7th day of week) to Sunday(1st day of week)---that claim being: The Sabbath wasn't "restated" in the NT.

Take a look at 1Thess.5:9-10, "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us]/u], that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. "

 

[e.r.m.]

Sincerely,
No apology to me was needed; what you expressed was against the scriptures.
-Show me those Scriptures. I apologize for the tone in which I wrote it. I stand by the message.

Representation is, indeed, seen in vs.8 concerning the Spirit and the wind.
--Are you now claiming baptism represents the wind and the Spirit. That's different than what you said before.

And vs.14 the lifting up of the serpent and Jesus being lifted up.
"Representation" is what much of Jesus sayings are involved it----"Parables".
--Jesus said a lot of parables and such. None of which were "Baptism represents what God has done in you..."

E R. M., think about it for just a moment, Gal. 2:21, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
--Connect baptism in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins to the law, and then let's talk.

The "Believer" is trading a clothing which is "represented as 'filthy rags'" for Jesus
"Robe of Righteousness" so that he may stand before the Father God
--Through water baptism, Galatians 3:26-27.

As far as "No exclusionary statements concerning baptism," There are thousands of other things that meet that criteria-----but still have no merit to SAVE a person.
--Language not clear. Please elaborate.

er.m., Your """""
The Blood of Jesus is the correct propitiation/Ransom which is acceptable to GOD the Fathclaim. Includes the Blood of Jesus.""""" was Correct until you added the "exclusionary" nonsense.
--The burden is on you to find a Scripture that separates water baptism from salvation, you're the one who made that claim. Very simple.

Not to go on a tanget, but your argument in the reverse is one of the "false reasons" for the change of Sabbath from Saturday(7th day of week) to Sunday(1st day of week)---that claim being: The Sabbath wasn't "restated" in the NT.
--Not as a command no. John 8:31, Acts 20:7. They could be Jesus disciples without having worship service on Saturday.

Take a look at 1Thess.5:9-10, "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us]/u], that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."
--All true, not exclusive of water baptism.

 

[sincerly]

Oximoron since salvation comes at water baptism. Plus there is no command in the Bible that is instructed to be followed "because it's a command". Denying oneself is commanded by Jesus, Loving one another as Jesus loved us is commanded by Jesus, Make disciples of all nations is commanded by Jesus. All of these commands have reasons attached to them, not solely for obedience sake. The reason attached to baptism is forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38. Baptism solely for obedience sake doesn't exist. That's a protestant lingo thing.

E R. M., Ex.16:28, "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?"
All of GOD'S "Laws" were given by GOD with the intent of them being Obeyed and all were given with a "reason"---That of a right relationship with GOD--With mankind--and with nature.

Your reason for Baptism in Acts2:38 is false.
Peter had been recapping the recent Events of Jesus and HIS Crucifixion, resurrection and reason ---GOD had made HIM LORD and Messiah(Christ). It was Jesus who did the "Remission of sins". Those Jews understood the "Shedding of Blood for the remission of Sins" since Lev.17:11.
Therefore, there was NO Blood in the act of baptism, But Peter understood the "Ye must be Born again".( And Jesus had been doing some Baptisms. And had left the Disciples with the Commandment to "GO Ye ...and Baptize".)
The Remission of Sins is by/through the shed blood of Jesus Christ and NOT by Baptism. That is a false exegetic conclusion.

 

[sincerly]

No apology to me was needed; what you expressed was against the scriptures.
Representation is, indeed, seen in vs.8 concerning the Spirit and the wind. And vs.14 the lifting up of the serpent and Jesus being lifted up.

"Representation" is what much of Jesus sayings are involved it----"Parables".

E R. M., think about it for just a moment, Gal. 2:21, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

The "Believer" is trading a clothing which is "represented as 'filthy rags'" for Jesus
"Robe of Righteousness" so that he may stand before the Father GOD Redeemed.

As far as "No exclusionary statements concerning baptism," There are thousands of other things that meet that criteria-----but still have no merit to SAVE a person.
er.m., Your """""
The Blood of Jesus is the correct propitiation/Ransom which is acceptable to GOD the Father.
--Includes the Blood of Jesus.""""" was Correct until you added the "exclusionary" nonsense.

Not to go on a tanget, but your argument in the reverse is one of the "false reasons" for the change of Sabbath from Saturday(7th day of week) to Sunday(1st day of week)---that claim being: The Sabbath wasn't "restated" in the NT.

Take a look at 1Thess.5:9-10, "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. "

Salvation isn't by Baptism.

 

[e.r.m.]

Salvation isn't by Baptism.

First century christianity is not the same christianity you have been familiarized with. Protestant christianity today is a watered down version, with its set of doctrines and beliefs picked up at the reformation. Water baptism for forgiveness of sins as preached in Acts 2 has been cut out and redefined from the original text. No one in the crowd questioned Peter's command to be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Acts 2:38 is the elephant in the room for baptists.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Salvation isn't by Baptism.

First century christianity is not the same christianity you have been familiarized with. Protestant christianity today is a watered down version, with its set of doctrines and beliefs picked up at the reformation. Water baptism for forgiveness of sins as preached in Acts 2 has been cut out and redefined from the original text. No one in the crowd questioned Peter's command to be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Acts 2:38 is the elephant in the room for baptists.

Maybe yours is watered-down, but mine follows the same principles which GOD has set forth from the beginning. It doesn't vasilate with the changing of the generations. My GOD, Who is the Creator of ALL that one sees, is not a respecter of Persons nor does HIS rules for a relationship to HIM and other Human Beings change.
The Salvation of Mankind was "ordained" to be in Christ Jesus from "before the foundation of the world".1Pet.1:1-25

That "snake in the garden " is now the "wolf in sheep clothing"--- speaking preverse things. NO one in that room doubted that Jesus who was "lifted up" and "shed HIS life" was the one---a person had to "Look on to live"(Faith)---receive salvation.

er. m., You didn't see "water" in association to baptism in Acts chapter 2. You can't "exclude" the obvious of Baptism including that of the Holy Spirit by which the Apostles Spoke.

 

[e.r.m.]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Salvation isn't by Baptism.



Maybe yours is watered-down, but mine follows the same principles which GOD has set forth from the beginning. It doesn't vasilate with the changing of the generations. My GOD, Who is the Creator of ALL that one sees, is not a respecter of Persons nor does HIS rules for a relationship to HIM and other Human Beings change.
The Salvation of Mankind was "ordained" to be in Christ Jesus from "before the foundation of the world".1Pet.1:1-25

That "snake in the garden " is now the "wolf in sheep clothing"--- speaking preverse things. NO one in that room doubted that Jesus who was "lifted up" and "shed HIS life" was the one---a person had to "Look on to live"(Faith)---receive salvation.

er. m., You didn't see "water" in association to baptism in Acts chapter 2. You can't "exclude" the obvious of Baptism including that of the Holy Spirit by which the Apostles Spoke.

Acts 2:3-4 Holy Spirit. Acts 3:38, 41 Water.

 

[sincerly]

er. m., You didn't see "water" in association to baptism in Acts chapter 2. You can't "exclude" the obvious of Baptism including that of the Holy Spirit by which the Apostles Spoke.

Acts 2:3-4 Holy Spirit. Acts 3:38, 41 Water.

Yes, the Holy Spirit did empower the Disciples, but not the audience. However, "water" is your supplied word to "Baptism". It is not present in the verse.
Yes, I believe in water Baptism, but as indicated in Acts 2:38, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST". Which is inline with Matt.28:19.
Jesus Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." for the Remission of Sins.
Baptism is symbolic of Jesus fulfilling that sacrificial event as prophesied. Paul brings out that fact in Rom.6:1-11, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin........Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

[e.r.m.]

Yes, the Holy Spirit did empower the Disciples, but not the audience. However, "water" is your supplied word to "Baptism". It is not present in the verse.
Yes, I believe in water Baptism, but as indicated in Acts 2:38, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST". Which is inline with Matt.28:19.
Jesus Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." for the Remission of Sins.
Baptism is symbolic of Jesus fulfilling that sacrificial event as prophesied. Paul brings out that fact in Rom.6:1-11, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin........Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

My purpose was to draw your attention to this issue. There are two baptisms referred to in the NT. Water baptism (e.g. - Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47-48, etc.) and baptism with the Holy Spirit (e.g. - Acts 2:2-4, Acts 10:44-46). Now, Acts 2:38, Matthew 28:18-20 is one of these two. John and Jesus said Jesus would do baptism with the Holy Spirit himself. The eunuch was baptized by another person, Philip, it was not the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In fact there are only two references to the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:2-4 & Acts 11:16-17). All the accounts of people being baptized in the Bible are the ones done by other people, the baptism done by others is the common event recorded. Lydia, the jailer, the eunuch, Cornelius and company, the Ephesians in Acts 19:1-5, Paul & Ananias, the three thousand, etc. The baptism done by others was in water, the baptism with the Holy Spirit was not done done by others, but by Jesus from heaven. Plus, unless it actually said otherwise, the default word for baptism in greek is water immersion. There is no record of anyone baptizing themselves with the Holy Spirit, since that's from Jesus. Peter could not command the people in Acts 2:38 to baptize themselves in the Holy Spirit. Peter did not say "Repent, and baptize yourselves in the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[sincerly]

My purpose was to draw your attention to this issue. There are two baptisms referred to in the NT. Water baptism (e.g. - Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47-48, etc.) and baptism with the Holy Spirit (e.g. - Acts 2:2-4, Acts 10:44-46).........
Peter could not command the people in Acts 2:38 to baptize themselves in the Holy Spirit. Peter did not say "Repent, and baptize yourselves in the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

e r.m., I'm aware of the two Baptisms and brought it to your attention in this topic. You purpose and focus has been on "water baptism".
Jesus did say the Baptism was to be in the name of Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ's Atoning Blood is the means of cleansing one from the penalty of sins. Baptism in the "water" is symbolic of the changing of HIS Righteousness for the Sinner's Guilt/death. The Repentant person now lives because of Jesus Christ paying that Ransom Price with HIS LIFE.
The "water" really has nothing to do with the Saving of the Person. Just as all those Animal Sacrifies were only "shadows" of Jesus being the REAL Sacrifice.---"fulfilled".

 

[e.r.m.]

e r.m., I'm aware of the two Baptisms and brought it to your attention in this topic. You purpose and focus has been on "water baptism".
Jesus did say the Baptism was to be in the name of Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ's Atoning Blood is the means of cleansing one from the penalty of sins. Baptism in the "water" is symbolic of the changing of HIS Righteousness for the Sinner's Guilt/death. The Repentant person now lives because of Jesus Christ paying that Ransom Price with HIS LIFE.
The "water" really has nothing to do with the Saving of the Person. Just as all those Animal Sacrifies were only "shadows" of Jesus being the REAL Sacrifice.---"fulfilled".

The bapttism in Acts 2:38 was water baptism because it wasn't baptism with the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2:2-4.

Baptism in the "water" is symbolic of the changing of HIS Righteousness for the Sinner's Guilt/death.
--As big as this belief is in your circle, this type of vocabulary (sepcifically about baptism) would have shown up in the Bible if this belief existed among them also. The Bible is completely void of this kind language. They didn't believe it. They wrote what they believed - Acts 2:38.

The "water" really has nothing to do with the Saving of the Person.
--Baptism in the greek is water immersion. There are two baptisms. Acts 2:38 was not baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire, it was water. Salvation does not come without forgiveness of sins.

 

[sincerly]

The bapttism in Acts 2:38 was water baptism because it wasn't baptism with the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2:2-4.

Baptism in the "water" is symbolic of the changing of HIS Righteousness for the Sinner's Guilt/death.
--As big as this belief is in your circle, this type of vocabulary (sepcifically about baptism) would have shown up in the Bible if this belief existed among them also. The Bible is completely void of this kind language. They didn't believe it. They wrote what they believed - Acts 2:38.

The "water" really has nothing to do with the Saving of the Person.
--Baptism in the greek is water immersion. There are two baptisms. Acts 2:38 was not baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire, it was water. Salvation does not come without forgiveness of sins.

e r.m., "Not if', Rom.6:1-11 existed in Paul's understanding of Jesus Christ's Death for the Remission of Sins. The Repentance and Belief in Jesus death/resurrection

 

[sincerly]

The bapttism in Acts 2:38 was water baptism because it wasn't baptism with the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2:2-4.

Baptism in the "water" is symbolic of the changing of HIS Righteousness for the Sinner's Guilt/death.
--As big as this belief is in your circle, this type of vocabulary (sepcifically about baptism) would have shown up in the Bible if this belief existed among them also. The Bible is completely void of this kind language. They didn't believe it. They wrote what they believed - Acts 2:38.

The "water" really has nothing to do with the Saving of the Person.
--Baptism in the greek is water immersion. There are two baptisms. Acts 2:38 was not baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire, it was water. Salvation does not come without forgiveness of sins.

e r. m., your using(--) as the start of your answer is confusing to others I'm sure, because I use those (--) to break my comments.

I Agree that Salvation DOES NOT come without the forgiveness of SINS--which is in the Atoning Blood of Jesus who Peter had been explaining to that Audience. Also, By which, Paul was attesting in Rom.6:1-11. ALL water baptism to be meaningful was to be done as Jesus had been "baptised"--immersion.

 

[e.r.m.]

e r.m., "Not if', Rom.6:1-11 existed in Paul's understanding of Jesus Christ's Death for the Remission of Sins. The Repentance and Belief in Jesus death/resurrection

I will stop using --.

You say the purpose of water baptism is to symbolize or to represent. You and those in your circle "use those words" - often. Paul did not use those words. Romans 6 did not use those words. Nobody used those words. My point was that these 'words' would have shown up if people had believed that, they didn't. There is a consistent pattern. Every baptist I ask, every time, changes the nature of the question and neglects to address the missing vocabulary that would be in the Bible had that belief actually existed.

Baptists use a double standard. They don't accept water baptism for forgiveness/salvation because those words are not in the Bible as often as belief/faith and salvation (but at least it's there), But it's OK to infer that people get baptized to symbolize/represent... that is written in the Bible "0" times. Deny what is written and adopt 'what is not'.