Being born again is associated with receiving the Holy Spirit as well as being water baptized.And being "born again" is associated with baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Being born again is associated with receiving the Holy Spirit as well as being water baptized.And being "born again" is associated with baptism with the Holy Spirit.
What Jesus never said what that water baptism was necessary for salvation. In fact, no verse says that.Jesus told John that water baptism was to be done to fulfill all righteousness. (Matt. 3:15)
Why take offense? I know what the Bible says. What others think isn't any of my business. I post to answer questions or make corrections. What people do with it is their business.Please don't take offense, I just don't see scripture aligning with your understanding.
This doesn't seem to answer my question.Jesus tells Nicodemus not to be surprised that he must be born again. He makes this statement after saying everyone must be born of water and Spirit.
Again, Jesus said water baptism is to be done in order to fulfill all righteousness. (Matt 3:15)
No it doesn't. Water baptism is SYMBOLIC of one's salvation and indwelling of the Holy Spirit and being born again.Being born again is associated with receiving the Holy Spirit as well as being water baptized.
The bible does make it clear that Philip's message included the need to be water baptized. See verse 12 and 16:FreeGrace2 said:
People are baptized in the Holy Spirit WHEN they believe in Christ. Eph 1:13,14
Why would anyone think that Paul, who wrote Eph 1:13,14 disagree with his own statement?
Philip had no "exchange" with the Samaritans regarding baptism.
No, the passage does NOT "include the need to be water baptized", as you claim.The bible does make it clear that Philip's message included the need to be water baptized. See verse 12 and 16:
Acts 8:12-17
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Also, see the initial post. Paul's statement in Eph 1:13-14 is in direct accordance with what he taught and commanded of those in the Acts 19:1-6 account.
The scripture says nothing about symbolism.No it doesn't. Water baptism is SYMBOLIC of one's salvation and indwelling of the Holy Spirit and being born again.
All that water baptism might do is remove some dirt from the body. Just as Peter indicated.
1 Pet 3:21 - and this (LITERAL) water symbolizes (Holy Spirit) baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We are saved by baptism with the Holy Spirit. Not water baptism.
Symbolism isn't the reality. I merely symbolizes reality. That's what it's for.
You may want to go back to your posts to see what you actually stated. My comment was in reference to your error in thinking that Philip's exchange with the Samaritans did not include the need to be water baptized.No, the passage does NOT "include the need to be water baptized", as you claim.
I've already explained that in the transitional period of the church, Gentiles didn't initially receive the Holy Spirit. And Acts 8 is an example of this.
btw, the text shows that "all the people" and Simon himself believed and were baptized. That's water baptism. It was when Peter and John laid hands on them that the Holy Spirit was given.
And Gal 3:2 and 5 and Eph 1:13,14 refute your belief that believers now receive the Holy Spirit WHEN they believe.
You need to deal with it.
Precious friend, concerning the significance of water baptism?:The significance of baptism is that once baptized, the born again one cannot go back to the previous lifestyle (bondage to sin).
So then, you reject 1 Pter 3:21?The scripture says nothing about symbolism.
Well, that's an interesting misread of Scripture.Peter is making a reference to getting into actual water but not for the same reason as one takes a bath in order to remove dirt from the surface of the body.
And you misread v.20 as well. The text does NOT SAY "saved by water". Really?Read the actual scripture:
1 Peter 3:20-21
“...eight souls were saved by water.
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:”
Then quote the verse that says what you claim.You may want to go back to your posts to see what you actually stated. My comment was in reference to your error in thinking that Philip's exchange with the Samaritans did not include the need to be water baptized.
You haven't shown any evidence of your claims yet. So, please, quote the verse that says what you claim.Your unwillingness to just accept correction and instead deflect is very apparent. You may want to stop doing that.
I did in post #105. If you do a search of the bible you will see that every time a person was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus it was baptism in water.Then quote the verse that says what you claim.
You haven't shown any evidence of your claims yet. So, please, quote the verse that says what you claim.
i've never argued against that. But so what? That isn't Holy Spirit baptism. Water baptism symbolizes one's identification with Christ.I did in post #105. If you do a search of the bible you will see that every time a person was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus it was baptism in water.
My opinion does not matter. What does is what is found in scripture.And don't forget what the GREATEST evangelist wrote:
1 Cor 1-
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
17 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.
So, IF IF IF water baptism is a requirement for one's salvation, then Paul was a total failure for this admission.
He actually made a point that he didn't baptize everyone, but only a very few.
Every evangelist desires to see as many people saved as possible. So actively NOT baptizing people shows that Paul himself didn't view water baptism as a requirement for salvation.
But you are free to your own opinion.
i've never argued against that. But so what? That isn't Holy Spirit baptism.
The question is what did the people believe that added them to the church. Did they obey any specific commands because they believed what they were told? Etc.In Acts, there are a number of verses that mention people believing and being "added to the church" without any mention of being water baptized.
What's to remember that you think I forgot?Your post #106 may refresh your memory.
What they believed was that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing in Him, they receive eternal life.The question is what did the people believe that added them to the church. Did they obey any specific commands because they believed what they were told? Etc.
No, Acts 2 was specific to those directly involved in Jesus' crucifixion.Many bible verses focus on one aspect of the plan of salvation (Acts 2); ie, belief in Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, repentance, water baptism and Spirit baptism. This does not change the fact that all are essential for one's salvation.
Uh, no He didn't. Here's v.16 from Matt 28: Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.Jesus makes this point in the following scripture. It parallels Jesus' great commission recorded in Matthew 28:19. Jesus states to preach the gospel to the world. We know the gospel message includes baptism because in verse 16 Jesus specifically mentions it.
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"It is also included in Matthew 28:19.
Your verse numbers don't add up.Verse 16 connects belief (faith) and acting upon one's belief through being baptized. (obedience) Verse 17 speaks to the fact that believing the entire gospel message will also result in God giving the Holy Ghost. How do we know this? Those who receive the Holy Ghost speak in unknown tongues. (Acts 2:33)
Are you aware that v.9-end of Mark 16 isn't found in the original text? Those verses didn't show up in manuscripts until much later.15 “And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Mark 16:15-18
I don't agree with your understanding that salvation does not include the need to repent, and get water baptized in Jesus' name as well as believe in Jesus' sacrifice.What's to remember that you think I forgot?
What they believed was that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing in Him, they receive eternal life.
No, Acts 2 was specific to those directly involved in Jesus' crucifixion.
Uh, no He didn't. Here's v.16 from Matt 28: Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
I'm glad you mentioned the Great Commission. v.16 shows to whom Jesus gave it. The 11. Not all the believers, which were "about 120" according to Acts 1:15. And in Acts 1 we again see that ONLY the 11 were present when Jesus gave the GC.
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
It is the "making of disciples" that is salvation. The water baptism doesn't make a disciple. It's a SIGN, or SYMBOL of being identified with Christ.
Your verse numbers don't add up.
Are you aware that v.9-end of Mark 16 isn't found in the original text? Those verses didn't show up in manuscripts until much later.
That means the verses weren't part of what Mark wrote.
If v.16 was Spirit inspired, it would be obvious that He was referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which I've already explained fully.
Why haven't you responded to my comment about 1 Cor 1 where Paul made clear that he wasn't sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. As the world's best and most prolific evangelist of all time, why did he emphasize what and what not he was sent to do?
Any evangelist who believes that water baptism was necessary for salvation, would make absolute sure that every person who responded to the message got immersed. Yet Paul makes clear he wasn't sent for baptiziing.
Think about it. With an open mind.
You've simply been taught error.
OK. So? You've failed to prove your claims.I don't agree with your understanding that salvation does not include the need to repent, and get water baptized in Jesus' name as well as believe in Jesus' sacrifice.
I already told you about Acts 2:38.Acts 2:38 is the first time people were told to repent and get baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sin and to expect to receive the Holy Ghost.
I already told you about the transitional period of the church.Examples of this are found elsewhere in the word.
Not with those who have read it and understand it. Jesus gave the GC face to face with 11 men; His disciples. He also gave it face to face with Paul.Matthew 28:19 - You understanding of this scripture is debatable.
The "opinions" are meaningless. The OLDEST AND MOST RELIABLE MANUSCRIPTS do not have v.9-end. Period. That is not debatable.There are differing opinions from scholars whether the book of Mark contained the scripture verses you mention. There is no definitive proof as far as I know. Nonetheless the same information contained there is evidenced in other places within the word.
Probably to someone else. I didn't see any addressed to me. What was your response?I did respond to 1 Cor 1 in a separate post.
See post #115Why haven't you responded to my comment about 1 Cor 1 where Paul made clear that he wasn't sent to baptize but to preach the gospel.