Did the apostles teach baptism?

Appreciate your answer. Would like to hear your thoughts on this. I found a translation like this online and it has stuck with me. Especially since Luke 24:47 which has the same phrase “eis aphesin hamartion“ upon repentance without any mention of baptism. The same phrase “eis aphesin hamartion” appears in Matthew 26:28 as well.


Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος.

if: baptistheto=be immersed; epi=on; onomati=authority; eis=into

You end up with this:

Peter then to them, repent, and be immersed, every one of you, on the authority of Jesus Christ into forgiveness of the sins of you, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In this case it is not be baptized in water to receive forgiveness of sins. It becomes be immersed into forgiveness of sins upon repentance, and it them matches Luke 24:47 exactly.

Here is Luke 24:47

καὶ κηρυχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ μετάνοιαν εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, — ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ.

and to be proclaimed on the authority of him repentance into forgiveness of sins to all nations, having begun from Jerusalem.

So from you last few posts. Peter was saying that Cornelius house received the same gift they did, and he was talking about Pentecost, he knew they had received the same gift because he heard them speak in tongues. Peter and those 120 in the upper room were already baptized in water and this was the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Then when Peter told the audience that gathered to repent and be baptized he was talking about water, which they did. It does not record their baptism of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues and we can assume that they were. In Cornelius house they were baptized in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues first, and then they were baptized in water. This order of baptism in water being sometimes before and sometimes after demonstrates the baptism in water part is an act of faith and will not stop the promise of the Holy Spirit being given to the believer if the water baptism has not been done yet. It does not mean we should discount the baptism in water or say it was not important and anyone who says it is not necessary today is a false teacher and should be sharply rebuked. That is how I interpret these passages you have mentioned.

I was trying to make the case that Peter as he discussed the conversion of Cornelius always seemed to say that people other than the Apostles and Cornelius received the Holy Spirit in the same manner as they did. In Acts 10:47 the 6 who accompanied him to Cornelius’ house. In Acts 11:17 those of the circumcision party who he was addressing. In Acts 15:8-9, the elders who were present.

Consider Hebrews 9:9-10

“(which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:9-10‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/59/heb.9.9-10.esv

Here is verse 10 in Greek:

μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα σαρκὸς μέχρι καιροῦ διορθώσεως ἐπικείμενα.

The Greek word translated washings is baptismois.

So, baptisms as regulations for the body would only be imposed until the time of reformation.

Verse 11 indicates that the time of reformation was the appearance of Christ as a high priest.

Why would Hebrews tell us that regulations for the body would end if water baptism was to be imposed under the new covenant?

I don’t have any problem with water baptism as an act of faith.

Those that were with him at Cornelius house and those that were addressed in Jerusalem were Jews who had received the gift of tongues when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. He specifically says that is how he knew they had received the same as they did, because they heard them speak with tongues.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. ...the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Hebrews was referring to the Levitical law and not the Baptism in water that John preached which was most definitely the introduction to the New Covenant. The Baptism in water that the Apostles continued to preach in obedience to Jesus Command to do so is not the Levitical washing spoken of in Hebrews.

The fact was that the apostles, elders and Peter, and those with Peter in Cornelius house had received an experience like those in Cornelius house that included speaking in tongues. This is what Peter said was the reason that he knew they had received the same thing.

Baptism simply means emersion and is an anglicized word from the Greek that the KJV translators practically invented in order to not use the word emersion because they were practicing sprinkling in 1611 church of England and by inventing this word they kept true to the original Greek (baptizo means emersion) but they side stepped the controversy.

I agree it means to immerse. Not to immerse in water. Thayers Lexicon says that baptizo is used in conjunction with eis to indicate the medium into which immersion occurs. That is the principal I was applying in my previous post #361 in reference to Acts 2:38.

I don't think we can talk about immerse in the New Testament theological context without including the concept of baptism in water. To be baptized in the name of Jesus means water baptism not some mystical letters J E S U S that fall upon us from the invisible realm. We are baptized in water to show our commitment and confession of faith. This act of faith is what God desires. We believe in our hearts and we confess with our mouths. Baptism in water is part of this confession with the mouth. It must be preached today just like it was in Acts. When the church gets back to baptism as soon as people confess faith they will see far less backsliders. Test it out see if I am wrong.

I see it as a confession of faith and I am not trying to eliminate it. I do believe we are saved by grace through faith and not by things we do. The mystical comment makes me think of John 3:8.

NO.

So the work of water baptism saves, and Paul is a fraud?

You also have the rules of language

peter told everyone to repent
he did not tell everyone to be baptized only those who received remission of sin

That’s what is sad, people see the word baptize and immediately assume water, it was not that way to the Greek speaking people

No, that is earning ones salvation

baptize means to immerse

when Paul in Romans tells us we were baptized into Christ, he literally meant that, we were immersed in Christ, no water was involved

I did not say or suggest we should not be water baptized. I wanted to know if that person was saying that water baptism was required for salvation. Of course we should be water baptized because Jesus said we were to be. But it was NOT for salvation was it?

I have seen people argue about what should be said when a person is water baptized, and Scripture supports both sides of this argument. In my opinion, following what Jesus Himself said carries far more weight than what the Disciples said. Simply saying in the Name of Jesus leaves out the Name of God and the Name of the Holy Ghost. Yes, Jesus is fully God, but He is one part of the Trinity, not the entire Trinity. He Himself said "in the Name OF the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why would anyone say that doing this is wrong? Makes no sense to me.

It means in the authority of. So they were sent by the authority of Jesus Christ to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Thanks.

Just a thought here, if we take Jesus literally should we say "By Jehovah Jira, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Ghost are you baptized."



Just saying

It is in the AUTHORITY of. Like "open up in the name of the Law" And so in the Name of the Father is going to be the same whether you attempt to pronounce YHWH without or without added vowels. Your Anglicanized translation and pronunciation is irrelevant. It is still in the authority of.

NO.

CEV - Act 2:38 Peter said, "Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.

KJV - 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.

LITERAL - Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

MKJV - Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

YLT - Act 2:38 and Peter said unto them, 'Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

I think that whatever rendering you use it is very clear what is meant.