Acts 10:43 really seems to be your pet verse and stumbling block.
*Acts 10:43-47 blows your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 right out of the water. Acts 10:43 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name,
whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because
the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them
speak with tongues and magnify God. (
Received the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE WATER BAPTISM - also see Acts 11:17 and Acts 16:31. They also spoke in tongues--spiritual gift which is ONLY for the body of Christ - see 1 Corinthians 12). Then Peter answered, 47
“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
I at one time attended the Campus Crusade for Christ and faith alone regeneration theology was about the only thing they talked about.
It's a shame that you did not repent and believe the gospel while attending Campus Crusade for Christ and still stubbornly refuse to place your faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation. Instead, you continue to trust in "water and works" for salvation.
The promise that is given to the unsaved masses is found in Acts 2:38 -39 ..."each one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven ...this promise belongs to you, your children and all those far off."
For the umpteenth time, 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.
Here is your faith, here is your repentance and here is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Here is your faith, here is your repentance and here is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:43-48; 11:17,18; 15:8,9. Roman Catholics and Mormons and other works-salvationists also stumble over Acts 2:38 and ignore multiple other passages of scripture that teach 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 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18).
As for Acts 10:43, just go five verses more and there is your baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Yes, there is baptism in verse 48 *
AFTER* THEY BELIEVED AND RECEIVED THE REMISSION OF SINS AND THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND SPOKE IN TONGUES. (Acts 10:43-47).
We have gone over this before, your grammar hocus pocus is not going to fly. Not one Bible translation in any language has ever presented Acts 2:38 in such a manner. You have no reasonable basis to claim such a thing.
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.
My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol
(although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell):
Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
We can argue "he said/they said" all day long, but what ULTIMATELY settles the issue for me is that *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* so your flawed hermeneutics is not going to fly.
In Acts 22:16 Ananias told a believing Paul to "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins". Why wash away his sins if he already believed?
The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.
Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name" (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).
As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out -
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.
Our sins are already washed away by the blood of Christ and we are saved when we repent/believe/call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43; 11:17,18; Romans 3:24-26; 10:13) BEFORE water baptism. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
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 also 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 prior to receiving water baptism 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 would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved.
*No single text of Scripture is to be interpreted out of context, and this includes the entirety of Scripture. No scripture is to be interpretated in isololation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.
In Mark 16:16 Jesus proclaimed "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". Why add baptized if belief is enough.
Why fail to add baptism if belief is not enough? (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved
(general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who
does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements?
BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. John 3:18 - He who
believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO)
does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO)
because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In 1st Peter 3:21 Peter states that "baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience, which now saves you".
1 Peter 3:21 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 says 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). Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. We could paraphrase Peter's statement by saying, "Baptism now saves you--not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents." By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.
*So in 1 Peter 3:21; it's not the water itself that saves us, but the "appeal-to-God-for-good-conscience". 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.
The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.” Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
These plus many more and no verses that state "faith alone.
There are only a handful of verses that "on the surface" appear to teach that we are saved by water baptism, yet there are a multitude of verses that make it clear we are saved through
belief/faith in Christ.
The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5,9,11,13,16,17; 5:1; 10:4; 26:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-8,14,22,24,26; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
You don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) IN CHRIST ALONE.
So the only logical conclusion "when properly harmonizing Scripture to Scripture" is that God has made water baptism the moment of the remission of sins and the gifting of the Holy Spirit rather then simply faith alone.
That is the illogical conclusion made by works-salvationists, including Roman Catholics, Mormons and Campbellites, but 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*
You most certainly are. Regardless of what Jesus wanted the apostles to teach and do, baptism was singled out. No loophole will change this.
I am not looking for a loophole. Water baptism FOLLOWS repentance/faith/remission of sins and no loophole will change this. Your theology is water logged.
No one is debating if the thief had a change of mind. The issue is using the thief as an example of baptism not being being commanded for the remission of sins.
The thief was
being crucified and went from blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus (not the fruit of repentance/faith) to a
"change of mind" (repentance) and placing his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). He died on the cross without having the opportunity to receive water baptism and that is good enough for me.
The Bible does not address the issue of the thief being baptized or not nor does it matter since the promise was made to him alone. So unless you have some esoteric knowledge, the issue is moot.
The Bible does address the condition of the heart of the thief
BEFORE (blasphemed, mocked and shook his head at Jesus) and
AFTER (rebuked the other thief, admitted his guilt, defended Christ and declared Him innocent, asked Jesus to remember Him when He comes into His kingdom) his conversion while hanging on the cross. So the issue is not moot, but since you are determined to accommodate your biased church doctrine, you will continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.