Shining Light on 1 Corinthians Chapter 15

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 necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and 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.

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

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.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - 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 (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*

This baptism was in regards to/on the basis of the remission of sins received upon repentance. In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water for repentance." Now did John baptize with water "in order to obtain" repentance or "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Obviously the latter. Baptizing someone "in order to obtain" repentance does not make sense. We "repent first" and are then water baptized "afterwards."

*Notice "repentance and remission of sins". So what happened to baptism here?

In Acts 19:2, Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed? and their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was not the case in Acts 2 and Acts 10 and is the exception, not the rule). It did signify their inclusion into the church. Apostles were also present when the Samaritans (chapter 8) were included. God's purpose was to emphasize unity in the church.

The point is......it is Peter's idea. Peter's baptism yes with water) was the baptism of John (the baptist) a baptism for repentance, purification. This is not the baptism as practiced today - we do not practice a baptism of repentance. Paul had to contend with Peter over Peter's Jewish traditional thinking.

I don't see in the word where it is taught that water baptism is done for admission to a church.

Again, I would point out that the exchange between Peter and the Jewish Council speaks to the fact they knew that water baptism was an integral part of repentance unto life. (Acts 11)

Water baptism is the joining of us to Christ in his death. So yes and integral part of repentance unto life. Because in being joined to him in his death is also being joined to him in his resurrection.

Those people asked for it......probably still thinking in the tradition of John's baptism.
Yes it is up to us to discern everything.
You are confusing the baptism of repentance (John the Baptist's water baptism) and water baptism today which is optional and is symbolic.

What a clever ploy of Satan; optional and then obsolete, (natural progression), so just as church no longer disciple they will no longer baptise, and thereby not be doing what Jesus commanded. Then believing as the devil's but not obeying.

The only time baptism is optional is when it's not an option. Dying in the desert with no water.

Many scriptures focus on specifics related to different components of the gospel message; Jesus' sacrifice, repentance, water baptism, etc. To say that because not all are mentioned in any one scripture proves they are not necessary is not true. An example would be that a scripture is silent about the need to repent but focuses on believing in Jesus' sacrifice. We know that a person is not born again without repenting even though the scripture didn't make that point. Understanding the word requires gathering all scriptures on a given topic in order to see where they fit in the big picture.

Also keep in mind that Paul's epistles were written to people who had already been born again. They give detail of what conduct God expects from His children. The letters also contain specifics about what occurred in one's water baptism, etc. This alone speaks to people having believed and obeyed the God-inspired commands without even realizing the enormous benefit of their decision until after they had stepped out in faith.

The requirement to be water baptized is of God's design. Just because we are unable to see into the spiritual realm doesn't mean that nothing happens there when we obey God's command and do it.

Paul's comments in the scriptures you note are given as evidence that that resurrection is a true phenomenon. As mentioned before the entire chapter is about resurrection principles.

See Paul's actions in Acts 19. Water baptism was by God's design it is not Peter's idea.

Please provide scripture that confirms your understanding.

you say here, baptizing for the dead is not Biblical -- i agree. referring to people who do so, Paul says 'they' do this, not 'we' & he contextually uses the practice as an extreme example of cognitive dissonance, pointing out that such a practice is underpinned by hope of resurrection. so what kind of dummy is practicing this and simultaneously saying there's no resurrection??


since you agree that baptizing living people as proxies for dead people isn't a doctrinally sound practice, i am puzzled by your saying that "it speaks to the fact that born again believers.."
do born again believers baptize themselves for dead people who never believed while they lived, thinking that by such a ritual the dead will have their unbelief and condemnation transformed to belief and forgiveness of sin? no? then this doesn't speak to any facts about born again believers, at all.
the only way that 1 Corinthians 15:29 has any comment about legitimate, right Christian doctrine is if proxy-baptisms for dead people is legitimate, right Christian Doctrine. since you say it isn't, your statement is unjustified by this passage.

it's a bit like saying, Hindus do such and such, and what they do shows that Christians ((who do no such thing)) believe something that is not in the text at all. maybe it's in some other text, but the fact that unbelievers believe in it or do it has nothing at all to do with what actual believers think or do. right?


just really not seeing how your statements in the paragraph i quoted logically follow from each other . . ?
if people with bad doctrine were doing something false, how do their wrong actions teach right doctrine?

@Wansvic unless you really do believe in proxy-baptism-for-dead-people ?

but you indicated you don't -- it might be instructive for everyone to explore exactly why don't you?

i think the events in Acts 10 pointedly teach us that 'what happens in the spiritual realm' is not at all contingent on physical descendancy or physical water immersion.
Gentiles received the Holy Spirit without having received H2O baptism.
this reads as an enormously significant & profound sequence of events to the people who witnessed it in the time it occurred. salvation was here unquestionably demonstrated to be by faith to all who hear the word of God & believe

that represented a radical departure from commonly held theological views, particularly of the Jews like Peter who had grown up with an emphasis on lineage, works, & corporeal ritual practices.

Should we just add Noahs command to build an Ark ? Abraham's command to offer Issac ? Do we just add up all the commands and make that the gospel? Or do we recognise the transitions through and leading up to the normative explanation in Paul's epistles?

What if Noah understood the command as ' build an Ark and build tower to be saved? would he be adding to Gods message ? Would he have wasted precious time building both ? What about Abraham. What if Abraham offered up Issac and the servant ? would that have been following the correct command? Look at the mistake Cain made?
Look at 1.cor 1.21 and ask what pleases God to save a person . Notice its not believe and a ceremony .

Yes the resurrection happened of course .

What if Noah had symbolically built an ark, or Moses symbolically circumcised his son, or Abraham symbolically sacrificed Issac.
Wansvic isn't adding to the scriptures, you are taking away from them.

Immediately upon reading this the following thought popped into my mind:

Even then I wonder if the sincere seeker of God would be led to an oasis. One never knows.