Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,"

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

What I have always told them which is the same thing I told you. "I am not your Judge. All I can do is relay to you what the scripture tells us about baptism, its function, and its place within the salvation continuum." How they respond to that is between them and the Lord. I am merely the messenger.

mailmandan · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

zzz98 said:

A person who repents and accepts Jesus Christ through faith should have every intention of being water baptized, yet if they die in a car accident before they are able to get water baptized, I believe they will go to heaven as well. It's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of water baptism. NOWHERE does the Bible say that whoever is NOT water baptized will NOT be saved. 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.

Budman · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

oldhermit said:

Okay. As we seem to be just going around in circles, I will bow out. Thanks for a respectful discussion. You are a gentleman, whom I have come to admire here.

Blessings!

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Budman said:

Thank you Budman. I am sorry we are unable to come to an agreement on this. Perhaps we can discuss this another time from the vantage point of another text.

Ahwatukee · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

mailmandan said:

I would also add the following:

"I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

In the scripture above, if Baptism was a condition for salvation and Paul said, "For Christ did not send me to baptize" then if it was an absolute requirement for salvation, wouldn't Paul by only preaching the gospel only be performing half of the requirement, leaving them unsaved? And what about the thief on the cross, would he not also be lost since he couldn't come down and be baptized? However, believers should be baptized because of scripture and as an outward demonstration of our being identified with Christ's death and resurrection.

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Ahwatukee said:

"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." I Corinthians 1:10-17
This does not minimize the place of baptism. The first point you have to recognize is that Paul DID baptize. All you have to do is read his history in Acts to see this. If the fact that the Lord had not sent Paul to baptize removes baptism from the salvation continuum why then did he baptize? Secondly, you have to acknowledge the fact that those of Corinth where baptized. When Paul addressed the Church at Corinth he was not diminishing the importance of baptism nor his practice of it. If you will notice he is charging those at Corinth of misrepresenting their baptism. The fact is, they were all baptized, some by Paul, some by Peter, and some by Apollos. The reason he was glad he had only baptized a few of them was not because baptism has no part in salvation but as he said, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name." For this reason he was glad he was not part of the division that was occurring in Corinth over who had baptized them. He did not want any of them saying, "I am of of Paul." He waned no part of this.

When Paul said that the Lord had not sent him to baptize does not meant that baptism is not part of the salvation process nor that baptism is not from the Lord. This is the same type of language we see from Jeremiah 7:22-23, “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. “But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you."

Does this mean that God had given no commandments concerning the offering of burnt offerings and sacrifices or that these were not required as part of the covenant God had made with Israel? Of course not. All you have to do is read Exodus and Leviticus to see this is not true. "This is what I commanded... ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people;" Baptism is as much a part of the gospel that Paul and every other apostle preached as the burnt offerings and sacrifices were to Israel in obeying the voice of the Lord.

Ahwatukee · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

oldhermit said:

"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." I Corinthians 1:10-17
This does not minimize the place of baptism. The first point you have to recognize is that Paul DID baptize. All you have to do is read his history in Acts to see this. If the fact that the Lord had not sent Paul to baptize removes baptism from the salvation continuum why then did he baptize? Secondly, you have to acknowledge the fact that those of Corinth where baptized. When Paul addressed the Church at Corinth he was not diminishing the importance of baptism nor his practice of it. If you will notice he is charging those at Corinth of misrepresenting their baptism. The fact is, they were all baptized, some by Paul, some by Peter, and some by Apollos. The reason he was glad he had only baptized a few of them was not because baptism has no part in salvation but as he said, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name." For this reason he was glad he was not part of the division that was occurring in Corinth over who had baptized them. He did not want any of them saying, "I am of of Paul." He waned no part of this.

When Paul said that the Lord had not sent him to baptize does not meant that baptism is not part of the salvation process nor that baptism is not from the Lord. This is the same type of language we see from Jeremiah 7:22-23, “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. “But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you."

Does this mean that God had given no commandments concerning the offering of burnt offerings and sacrifices or that these were not required as part of the covenant God had made with Israel? Of course not. All you have to do is read Exodus and Leviticus to see this is not true. "This is what I commanded... ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people;" Baptism is as much a part of the gospel that Paul and every other apostle preached as the burnt offerings and sacrifices were to Israel in obeying the voice of the Lord.

If someone is not baptized for whatever reason and they die, I don't believe that they will be excluded from salvation and eternal life. My reason for mentioning Paul was that, if baptism was absolute, Paul wouldn't have said what he said regardless of the division issue and that because baptism would be a requirement for salvation. What's worse, being caught up in the division or not baptizing people when it is a requirement for salvation? What about the thief on cross? If baptism was absolute for salvation, then he's lost, no exceptions.

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Ahwatukee said:

You are missing the point. All of these people WERE baptized. If it is not part of the salvation equation why were they baptized?

Ahwatukee · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

oldhermit said:

And the man on the cross?

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Ahwatukee said:

What about him?

Ahwatukee · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

oldhermit said:

Let me ask you this, those in Cornelius' household, did they receive the Holy Spirit before baptism or after baptism? Peter said, God purified their hearts by faith, not by works and not by being baptized. Did they get baptized? Yes, and as I said I believe all believers should be baptized, but they had already received the Spirit prior to baptism.

Ahwatukee · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

oldhermit said:

He wasn't baptized nor could he come down from the cross to do so.

james57 · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

oldhermit said:

In the churches I have attended baptism was a public profession of your faith. All christians should be baptised but we are saved by grace, through faith, not an outward act, however important it may be

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Ahwatukee said:

This man lived and died under the old law. Baptism into Christ is part of the new covenant. It is an unwarranted assumption to insist that the man was not baptized. There is more to imply they he may well have been baptized by John than not because, "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Ahwatukee said:

I will get to this later. Let us focus on one example at a time.

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

james57 said:

I really do not feel like going over all of this again. Maybe you can read this thread from the beginning and see what I have already said on the subject.

oldhermit · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Going to bed. Have a busy day tomorrow. Be back bright and early.

Ahwatukee · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

oldhermit said:

Regarding this issue, I guess we can agree to disagree. You also have a blessed night as well and we'll talk to you tomorrow.

zzz98 · Oct 21, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Ahwatukee said:

If you are talking about the thief on the cross, he made a profession of faith to the Lord Himself and required no baptism since death was imminent, like the end of the movie "God is not Dead" Kevin Sorbo's character gets hit by a car and made a profession of faith since death was imminent. There was no time for baptism.

mailmandan · Oct 22, 2015

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Ahwatukee said:

Amen! I believe the thief on the cross is an excellent example of a death bed conversion (he was saved through faith) but was unable to get water baptized prior to his death (but was still saved). Some may try to argue that thief may have previously been converted and was water baptized yet the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief?

In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized. I see absolutely NO evidence that points to the thief previously being converted and receiving water baptism.

Another argument is that the thief on the cross was still under the old law and baptism was not necessary for salvation under the old law but under the new law baptism is necessary for salvation. Under the new law, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; yet under the old law, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. So in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 (under the old law), was this baptism of repentance "FOR" (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or "FOR" (in reference to/in regards to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It must be the latter. In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water "FOR" repentance. If translated "in order to obtain", the verse does not make sense. I baptize you with water "FOR" (in order to obtain) repentance? or I baptize you with water "FOR" (in reference to/in regards to/on the basis of) repentance? Under the old law in Luke 24:47 we read - and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. *No mention of baptism.

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. These Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). *Perfect Harmony*

Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,"

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

zzz98

Guest

Senior Member