water baptism in Jesus' Name.

[heartwashed]

Fair enough. All I can say is my interpretation of scripture differs from yours significantly.

So, how do you deal with the verses in question? How do you interpret them?

With exegesis or with eisegesis?

 

[ResidentAlien]

So, how do you deal with the verses in question? How do you interpret them?

With exegesis or with eisegesis?

Thanks for your question but that's as far I'm going with it. Later.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I am performing exegesis when I read that in the text and not eisegesis.

What words of Jesus do you think it contradicts?

In John 3, Jesus never mentions baptism once. why if it was so important..

same in john 4, 5 and 6..

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

But he may have been baptized before he went to his own cross.

Sometimes the effect of baptism (walking in newness of life) does not happen until later in the person's life.

So no one in the OT was saved?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

No, it is not a work. For it is the condition to a promise of salvation (remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost).

no, it is a work of righteousness. As was circumcision in the OT.. they both represent the washing done by God

 

[Nehemiah6]

I would like here to make a case for baptism in Jesus' Name.

No need. The words of Christ in Matthew 28:19 have been authoritative for almost all Christians for over 2.000 years. So once again you are promoting false ideas believed by a very small minority.

 

[DJT_47]

This was discussed in significant detail on a recent post. "Baptism, the simple version".

Scripture MUST agree with scripture. One does not supercede another to produce conflict. So, both Mat 28:19 and Acts 2:38 have to be in harmony even though they say something different. The bottom line point being, they both are simply implying that it's by the authority of either the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, or Jesus Christ. Makes no difference. Also, once the believer has confessed Christ, it's a moot point; Just baptize then as was done in the biblical record. No baptizer is recorded saying anything prior to the immersion. The only one saying anything or told to say anything was the one being baptized as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and as was told to Paul in Acts 22.

 

[mailmandan]

Yes, it is not a removal of dirt from the flesh; however, one thing it is, is that it is a washing away of sins (Acts 22:16).

As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out that baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same SENSE Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5)

Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

 

[mailmandan]

My Bible says that they were saved "by" water...

Multiple translations say saved THROUGH water. The Greek is saved "through" (di) water. (NKJV, NASB, NIV). The ESV reads ..eight persons, were brought safely through water. Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). So once again, 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.

Keep reading and don't merely stop at verse 20 and apply your eisegesis. Peter said 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." 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.

 

[mailmandan]

false teaching.

I properly harmonized scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. So once again, 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*

All I'm hearing from you is eisegesis and bias.

I would like here to make a case for baptism in Jesus' Name.

Are you a Oneness Pentecostal?

 

[mailmandan]

Yes, I mentioned this scripture in the OP.

Did you properly harmonize scripture with scripture (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) before reaching your conclusion on doctrine?

Once again, 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.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

First I want to show that scripturally baptism has the power to save.

Of course, it is a Scriptural Fact That "water baptism was for the remission
of sins" in the previous dispensation of ↑ "the law". ↑ So, today, in The
Dispensation Of The Grace Of God, that would then be UNdispensational -
ie:

Summary of: Three baptisms, Rightly Divided, Within God's Contexts
(Dispensations):

(1) Prophecy/Covenants/Law for ISRAEL:

water baptism was man's operation, Commanded by God
to John the baptizer, and then by Christ to:

►►► The Twelve apostles who Were Sent to {water} baptize! ◄◄◄

The TWO Main (of 12) baptismS =

A) water, For remission of sins/induction into Israeli "priesthood!":
(Matthew_3:5-6; Mark_1:4; Luke_3:3; John_1:31; Luke 7:29-30; Acts_10:37)
(Matthew_28:19; Mark_16:16; Acts_2:38, 22:16; Ezekiel_36:25)
+
This Is The Baptism That "Christ Performed" after ascending Into Heaven:

B) Baptism WITH The Holy Spirit, Poured Out By CHRIST, for
power, signs And wonders!
(Isaiah_44:3; Matthew_3:11; Mark_1:8, 16:17-18;
Luke_24:49; Acts_2:17-18, 38, 8:15-17, 11:16)
Prophecy/Covenants/Law

Q: Are these TWO "still Required" By God, for us, Today, Under Grace?
Bible Answer:

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That DIFFER!” {online}:

(2) Mystery/GRACE! =

our "apostle to the Gentiles" for The Body Of CHRIST:

►►► Paul Was Not Sent to {water} baptize! Why Not?: ◄◄◄

Today: Only ONE Baptism = "BY " The ONE Spirit = God's OPERATION,
Spiritually Identifying members In (The ONE Body Of) CHRIST!!
(Ephesians_4:5; Colossians_2:12; Galatians_3:27;
Romans_6:3-4; ►►► 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJB ◄◄◄)

This then, Under The Current Dispensation Of Grace, would make the ONE:

"Baptism By The One Holy Spirit for the ( heart-washing ) forgiveness
of sins," (Titus 3:5-7) eh?

Amen.

Also, there is this study: UnScriptural or UNdispensational?

 

[mailmandan]

I will only say to this that Acts 2:39, Romans 8:31 speak for themselves.

I don't have the answer to all of your questions; but I have a question for you:

Since it is only those who are called who have been predestinated and will be justified and therefore glorified, how are they justified who have not been called (see Acts 2:39)?

In Acts 2:39, who was Peter addressing? In regards to Romans 8:31, Philip proceeded to tell the eunuch the good news about Jesus, beginning from that Scripture in Isaiah.

There is a difference between the general call (Matthew 22:14) and the effectual call. (Romans 8:30)

 

[CS1]

I would like here to make a case for baptism in Jesus' Name.

First I want to show that scripturally baptism has the power to save.

1Pe 3:20, 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.
1Pe 3:21, 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:

In verse 20, it makes it clear that the baptism being spoken of in verse 21 is water baptism.

Now, I know that a case can be made that we are saved by grace through faith; as though this excluded being saved through the grace of baptism. In this post I will not argue that a person can only be saved through baptism in Jesus' Name (except in part); but that baptism in Jesus' Name has the power to save a soul;

And that therefore, if you have any doubts about your salvation, being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins may be something that you might want to try.

For it is written,

Deu 4:29, But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

and,

Jer 29:13, And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

It should be clear that there is a conditional promise in holy scripture, that we can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...

The condition being that we repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins:

Act 2:38, 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.
Act 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

I would say, also, that if baptism does indeed save, that this salvation is in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth:

Act 4:10, Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:11, This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Act 4:12, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Now, here I will make a case for the exclusivisity in salvation of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

For the promise of Acts 2:38 is a conditional promise.

Act 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

And it is given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Consider.

Rom 8:30, Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

If you are not among the called, then you were never predestinated unto salvation; and will not be justified.

Nevertheless, in Mark 16:16, it is those who believe not who will be damned; baptism isn't mentioned (as concerning condemnation for lack of it) except as a guarantee for salvation wherein it says, "whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

This indicates to me that, whereas in John 3:16, if you believe only, you "should" not perish, that if you believe and are baptized, you have an absolute promise of salvation...the word "shall" is an absolute one...whereas the word "should" is rather iffy.

So, I will not here preach that you must be baptized in Jesus' Name or else you will not be saved (I will allow the word of God to do that preaching for me, in verses already quoted); but I will say that if you want absolute assurance of salvation, the next step is to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

Then, you shall receive remission of sins (1 John 3:9) and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

WATER Baptism in the Name of Jesus is a valid Baptism however, so is " In the name of the Father And of the son and of the Holy Spirit.

Neither one save you. Baptism is an act of obedience for those who are Saved. One must come to faith and then be baptized.

 

[mailmandan]

He was nailed to the cross he didn't come off the cross to be baptized.

Amen! Certain people may try to argue that the thief may have been converted, was water baptized, yet the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)

In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blasphemed, 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, blaspheming, 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.

 

[CS1]

I would like here to make a case for baptism in Jesus' Name.

First I want to show that scripturally baptism has the power to save.

1Pe 3:20, 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.
1Pe 3:21, 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:

In verse 20, it makes it clear that the baptism being spoken of in verse 21 is water baptism.

Now, I know that a case can be made that we are saved by grace through faith; as though this excluded being saved through the grace of baptism. In this post I will not argue that a person can only be saved through baptism in Jesus' Name (except in part); but that baptism in Jesus' Name has the power to save a soul;

And that therefore, if you have any doubts about your salvation, being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins may be something that you might want to try.

For it is written,

Deu 4:29, But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

and,

Jer 29:13, And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

It should be clear that there is a conditional promise in holy scripture, that we can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...

The condition being that we repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins:

Act 2:38, 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.
Act 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

I would say, also, that if baptism does indeed save, that this salvation is in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth:

Act 4:10, Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:11, This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Act 4:12, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Now, here I will make a case for the exclusivisity in salvation of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

For the promise of Acts 2:38 is a conditional promise.

Act 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

And it is given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Consider.

Rom 8:30, Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

If you are not among the called, then you were never predestinated unto salvation; and will not be justified.

Nevertheless, in Mark 16:16, it is those who believe not who will be damned; baptism isn't mentioned (as concerning condemnation for lack of it) except as a guarantee for salvation wherein it says, "whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

This indicates to me that, whereas in John 3:16, if you believe only, you "should" not perish, that if you believe and are baptized, you have an absolute promise of salvation...the word "shall" is an absolute one...whereas the word "should" is rather iffy.

So, I will not here preach that you must be baptized in Jesus' Name or else you will not be saved (I will allow the word of God to do that preaching for me, in verses already quoted); but I will say that if you want absolute assurance of salvation, the next step is to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

Then, you shall receive remission of sins (1 John 3:9) and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

the text you used in 1pet 3:21

says :

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.


1pet 3:20 has nothing to do with baptism.

 

[heartwashed]

In John 3, Jesus never mentions baptism once. why if it was so important..

same in john 4, 5 and 6..

No, those passages (John 3 and 4) do mention baptism in water.

I would suggest to every reader that it is expedient to be a Berean (Acts 17:10-11).

 

[heartwashed]

So no one in the OT was saved?

different dispensation.

 

[heartwashed]

This was discussed in significant detail on a recent post. "Baptism, the simple version".

Scripture MUST agree with scripture. One does not supercede another to produce conflict. So, both Mat 28:19 and Acts 2:38 have to be in harmony even though they say something different. The bottom line point being, they both are simply implying that it's by the authority of either the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, or Jesus Christ. Makes no difference. Also, once the believer has confessed Christ, it's a moot point; Just baptize then as was done in the biblical record. No baptizer is recorded saying anything prior to the immersion. The only one saying anything or told to say anything was the one being baptized as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and as was told to Paul in Acts 22.

It is important to acknowledge the name if one is baptized in the titles.

There is one name in Matthew 28:19, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

That name is revealed to us in Acts 2:38.

 

[heartwashed]

As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out that baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same SENSE Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5)

Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

It has been said that the blood is in the water.