"Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

[exchemist]

Which version are using, if I may ask? I use the NKJV.

New Jerusalem.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

New Jerusalem.

Well, that's a new one on me. Never heard of it. But still, physical dirt versus filth of the flesh. They're the same thing, stated differently. It means, this isn't just a bath to wash away dirt, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, and that it saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[InChrist]

After Peter delivered his first sermon to those gathered for the celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem, convicting them of the murder of Jesus and convincing them that He was the Messiah, they asked him this question (Acts 2:37). He then tells them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) Why then do so many deny that either repentance or baptism are requirements of salvation? (Scripture quoted from NKJV.)

I certainly don’t deny that repentance is necessary for salvation, since it would only be reasonable to conclude that at the moment one places their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and for forgiveness of their sins, repentance is involved. While I consider baptism an important step of obedience for a believer in Jesus Christ, there are other scriptures which show salvation is through faith in Christ alone and His complete sufficiently. Acts 2:38 is not the sole verse referencing salvation.
Is baptism necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Left Coast]

Actually, the flood is the type, not the antitype.

Yes, I know. I said that baptism is the antitype.

So if the printed thing, the copy, is the flood, and the full, correct item is baptism, which one, now having both as examples, should we be following?

I don't think anyone is saying the author of the passage means the Earth should get flooded again, lol.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

I certainly don’t deny that repentance is necessary for salvation, since it would only be reasonable to conclude that at the moment one places their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and for forgiveness of their sins, repentance is involved. While I consider baptism an important step of obedience for a believer in Jesus Christ, there are other scriptures which show salvation is through faith in Christ alone and His complete sufficiently. Acts 2:38 is not the sole verse referencing salvation.
Is baptism necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

Well, I certainly don't think this is the only passage which references salvation, nor is it the only passage that references baptism for the purpose of salvation. I've mentioned several at other places in this thread. But perhaps the most telling of them all is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. He met Jesus on the road to Damascus and was there convicted of his sins against Jesus and His people. Jesus told him to go on to Damascus and that he would be told what to do there. He spent three days weeping and praying. He was certainly a believer. He was certainly penitent. He was praying fervently and without ceasing! He was almost certainly (I infer this from how I would react) freaking out! If he was saved, he certainly didn't know it! But Ananias then came to him and told him what to do to be saved. In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts that Ananias told him, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Calling upon the name of the Lord was a way worship was often referred to in the Bible in both Testaments.)

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

Yes, I know. I said that baptism is the antitype.



I don't think anyone is saying the author of the passage means the Earth should get flooded again, lol.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

I've got to go and get some dinner, folks. Hopefully I answered your questions well. But if you need further information, here's a great video that should help.

The Truth About Baptism | God’s Plan for Saving Man

 

[74x12]

thou shall not take the lord thy god's name in vain isn't a reference to the name jesus. it's a reference to the ineffable name. jesus was the name given to him by his parents. the ineffable name is the name sealled in the forehead of the 144,000. the Father's name. it is the seal of ezekiel at ezekiel 9:4.

it isn't jesus.

most do not know what they are being baptized into. they are focused on salvation, saving their rumps. they don't have a clue what they are being baptized into.


so most baptism are like that of leviticus 14:8

or

mark 7: 4


matthew 23:27


but immersion into the name is that which cleanses the inside. that is why it is also written


luke 11:35 talks about a light that doesn't come from outside. this light can be found in everyone; if everyone looks

so it isn't what is on the outside of self but what is within self that defiles

What ineffable name? If you read the books of Samuel they use God's name in common conversation. The idea that you can't speak God's name is modern Judaism. In ancient Judaism they had no such rule. To take God's name in vain was most likely originally to swear falsely in his name.

 

[Rival]

I don't think anyone is saying the author of the passage means the Earth should get flooded again, lol.

Come on, you know there's going to be that one person.

 

[DNB]

After Peter delivered his first sermon to those gathered for the celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem, convicting them of the murder of Jesus and convincing them that He was the Messiah, they asked him this question (Acts 2:37). He then tells them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) Why then do so many deny that either repentance or baptism are requirements of salvation? (Scripture quoted from NKJV.)

I believe, it is because, for one, there are several baptisms described in the Bible: the baptism of John (water immersion), baptism of fire, in the name of Christ Jesus. And two, it is the latter one that Peter is referring to in the case of Acts, which, to me, is simply a recognition of what you are confessing after repentance - that Jesus Christ is Messiah and Lord.
I do not believe that water baptism is requisite for salvation, but rather confessing Christ as Lord and Saviour, which is being baptized in the name of Christ Jesus.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

I believe, it is because, for one, there are several baptisms described in the Bible: the baptism of John (water immersion), baptism of fire, in the name of Christ Jesus. And two, it is the latter one that Peter is referring to in the case of Acts, which, to me, is simply a recognition of what you are confessing after repentance - that Jesus Christ is Messiah and Lord.
I do not believe that water baptism is requisite for salvation, but rather confessing Christ as Lord and Saviour, which is being baptized in the name of Christ Jesus.

I'm sorry, I know I said I was done, but how is a confession a baptism?

 

[Orbit]

Do you really think Jesus cares if you get your hair wet? This whole debate makes no sense to me.

 

[Left Coast]

Come on, you know there's going to be that one person.

Touché

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

Do you really think Jesus cares if you get your hair wet? This whole debate makes no sense to me.

 

[Orbit]

View attachment 58611

That does not at all address my point. Jesus spent his life railing against the Pharisees, who enjoyed a "bean counting" legalistic approach to religion that ignored the big picture. Insistence on immersion is exactly the kind of legalistic nonsense Jesus would object to.

 

[blü 2]

After Peter delivered his first sermon to those gathered for the celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem, convicting them of the murder of Jesus and convincing them that He was the Messiah

On the basis of the NT, I don't understand in what sense Jesus could be said to be "murdered". He made it clear from the start that his mission was to die (eg Mark 2:20, Mark 8:31). To this end he put himself in harm's way in Jerusalem, refused various opportunities to flee, confirmed (in the garden prayer scenes) his acquiescence God's wish that he die, and generally manipulated events accordingly.

That is, in the stories, he's not the victim, he's the one using the system to get what he wants, what he thinks his mission demands.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In fairness, the "this water" that the author is saying baptism is an antitype for is the Flood...ie as Noah was saved through water (the flood), we are also saved through water (baptism). It would be bizarre if the author meant some non-water baptism, given his analogy.

I like where you're coming from, and I hadn't made the Noah's flood connection. ...But now that you have made the connection for me I think that it (this reference in John 3) could be a reference to the noahic covenant rather than to water baptism. Allegorically Christians bury ourselves in the flood and mud and only part of us is preserved just like Noah* is preserved. I view this as connected to self denial preached by Jesus, and I view self denial as part of baptism or possibly the important part of it.

*The noahic covenant is a covenant to be peaceful -- of not killing other people. Noah is preserved from the flood, because he is the only non-violent person left. He teaches his children to be like himself, and they all join in the covenant of peace.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why then do so many deny that either repentance or baptism are requirements of salvation?

I notice that you've suggested that being baptized into the name of Jesus means being baptized into his authority. These are very old documents, and they are in cultures alien to us today. What if it isn't mainly about authority and means denying yourself, becoming no one? Then you could be baptized in water but by focusing upon remaining yourself miss the point of baptism in water. Why does Jesus say to deny ourselves, and doesn't it seem related to being baptized into his name?

 

[RestlessSoul]

On the basis of the NT, I don't understand in what sense Jesus could be said to be "murdered". He made it clear from the start that his mission was to die (eg Mark 2:20, Mark 8:31). To this end he put himself in harm's way in Jerusalem, refused various opportunities to flee, confirmed (in the garden prayer scenes) his acquiescence God's wish that he die, and generally manipulated events accordingly.

That is, in the stories, he's not the victim, he's the one using the system to get what he wants, what he thinks his mission demands.

That’s a very particular interpretation; one that only really works, imo, if we assume Jesus was in control of the process, dictating the narrative of his own life. I don’t read the Gospel stories that way at all. You mention the garden scenes, but in Luke 22:42 he sincerely asks God to excuse him from his destiny. And in Matthew 27:46 he despairs on the cross (quoting Psalm 22). In other words, he was human, and he knew terror, and despair, as occasionally all humans do.

It’s one thing to say that the Jesus of the Gospels accepted his destiny, embraced it even. Certainly, he appears to have known all along that he was going to be put to death, for preaching his radical message. This is not to say that he was in control of his destiny; he fulfilled his duty, his dharma if you like, and was prepared to do so regardless of personal cost, so great was his faith, and so sincere was his willingness to sublimate his own will to that of the Father.

Jesus wasn’t on a death mission; that would make no sense, not least in the context of John 14:6
Rather than actively seeking torture and death, he passively accepted them as God’s will for him. There’s an important distinction there. As for the other protagonists in the story, they played their parts and bear their responsibilities, all of them, including Pilate, Herod, Judas, the Centurion at the cross, and the mob of common people manipulated by the Priestly class. They are not passive players in the drama. That’s how I read the stories, anyway; you are of course free to interpret the Gospels as you see fit.

If you are interested, btw, in a truly original and deeply human interpretation of the Gospel stories, you might try reading The Master and Margarita by Mikhael Bulgakov, specifically the Pilate chapters which constitute the novel within the novel.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

Jesus wasn’t on a death mission; that would make no sense, not least in the context of John 14:6
Rather than actively seeking torture and death, he passively accepted them as God’s will for him. There’s an important distinction there. As for the other protagonists in the story, they played their parts and bear their responsibilities, all of them, including Pilate, Herod, Judas, the Centurion at the cross, and the mob of common people manipulated by the Priestly class. They are not passive players in the drama.

That's exactly right. This is also demonstrated when Pilate specifically asks Jesus if He is the King of the Jews in John 18:33-37. (NKJV quoted below.)

33 Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

34 Jesus answered him, “Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?”

35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?”

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”

Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”