Baptism

I love the way people pick and choose which commands we must obey. Some (they say) involve a form of works-based salvation while other don't. I'm a little confused. Where did the Lord categorize His commands into those which are works-based salvation and those that aren't?

That is correct, 1 Cor. 12:13 is NOT Holy Spirit baptism.

I suggest that baptism with the Holy Spirit happened twice. Pentecost and Cornelius.

I suggest water baptism and salvation happen together. We are baptized into Christ where our sins are forgiven.
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

I think the verse speaks for itself. Everyone who believes is already born again. You can’t fit anything else in there if you believe what this verse says.

If we are going to do "one verse salvation", then here's one for you....
1 Peter.....
" 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [p]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

Nothing else needed.... just baptism, and you are saved. Shaking my head.....

it is the ressurection of Christ that saves

Here's my problem with this. In the first version you changed in the name of to on the authority of. I don't disagree that in the name of means by the authority of, but by changing the words it makes it easier to change the meaning. Being baptized in the name of Jesus is without question water baptism.

If we are going to do "one verse salvation", then here's one for you....
1 Peter.....
" 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [p]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

Nothing else needed.... just baptism, and you are saved. Shaking my head.....

Here's my problem with this line of thinking. In John 3 where Jesus is looking forward to His church He says, unless one is born of water and Spirit. Then when He sends out the apostles, He tells them to make disciples baptizing them in the name of Father, Son and HS. That baptism is clearly water. In the same conversation He says, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. There is zero evidence to suggest this is a different type of baptism and plenty to know it's water. Therefore it stands to reason that water baptizing them in the name of Jesus, absolutely by His authority, is how they are baptized into Christ.

We see exactly that on Pentecost. Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. We know this is water baptism because that is exactly what Jesus instructed the apostles to do days earlier.

I find it interesting that when people want to prove one becomes a Christian without water baptism, they never go to Jesus's instructions to the apostles on how to convert the sinner. Shouldn't that be the starting point. Nor do they want to look at the multiple conversions where the apostles did exactly as Jesus instructed.
Like here. Where there is zero question this is water.
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. Just as Jesus said, believes and is baptized will be saved.

Look at it in P72 and Sinaiticus. There is a semicolon in both of them. They read something like this:

And you now an antitype saves: immersion not of the flesh, a putting away of filth, but of a conscience good the demand toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So you went to bible hub and did not notice a difference?

I went to bible hub. I did not see any greek references as to how the words were used.

repent - verb aorist, active, imperative, second person, plural

be baptized - verb, aorist, passive, imperative, third person, singular

shall recieve the gift - verb, future, middle, indicative, second person, plural

can you be honest and tell me why there is a difference here, and what it means?

The Greek word used here in many, but not all, of the oldest manuscripts is epi. Epi means on, not in. Onomati means a name, authority, or cause.

If the water in John 3:5 is baptism then John 3:5 and 1John 5:1 are at odds with each other. There are other plausible meanings for the water in John 3:5. John 3:6 indicates that the water is in reference to our fleshly birth.

Nothing I said about Acts 2:38 conflicts with Acts 2:41. If they were immersed into Christ. That is still immersion. The same can be said for the Corinthians.

“For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1‬:‭17‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.1.17.ESV

I try my best to be honest, especially with myself. If I'm fooling myself, can I ever really know the truth.

As I said, I'm no scholar or english major. So from an "everyday" person perspective, it appears to me he is stressing the need for baptism. Going from everyone to every one of you, the individual. Which makes sense to me because Jesus instructed Peter to make disciples baptizing them in the name of Jesus.

And of all those Peter was preaching to, who were the ones to be added. Only those who were baptized.

I just hit me. Maybe I've been miss understanding you. Are you saying baptized "in the name of" Jesus is not water?

Based on the context, what is Pauls point in 1 Cor. 1:17?

Maybe I can help

a first person can not be related to a second person
a second person can not be related to a third person

plural words speak to a group of people

singular words speak only to a person

for this reason, the gift of the spirit (a 2nd person plural) was offered to everyone, who did the 2nd person command.

the 3rd person singular word (baptism) has nothing to do with the second person word.

Language forbids it.

so if your going to be honest with yourself as you claim. You will notice these basic things, and have your belief system fit these rules of language.

If you look up the phrase “in the name of Jesus” where it appears in English versions and look back at the Greek text you will find that it is not always the same. Sometimes en/in is used, but you will also find epi/on and eis/into.

In Acts 19:5 eis is used:

“On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭19‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.19.5.ESV

If you know that in is really eis you see this differently. They were immersed into the authority of the Lord Jesus. And now this doesn’t sound like a water immersion anymore.

So you're saying, baptized in the name of Jesus is not water baptism?

Does the conjunction "and" put repentance and baptism together? What is the "third" person related to?

I'm 100% convinced that water baptism and the Spirit are related.

In Acts 19 Paul meets some believers who were accurately taught about Jesus but were baptized wrong. When Paul finds out they hadn't received the Holy Spirit, he only questions their baptism. He doesn't question what they were taught. He doesn't question if they truly believed. He doesn't question if they repented, he questions their baptism.
2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.”

If you continue reading, you will see Paul doesn't give them gifts of the Holy Spirit until he corrects their baptism and baptizes them in the name of Jesus. Just like we see in Acts 2. Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus and you will receive. Just like in John 3, water and spirit.

If you look further into Acts 19:5:

“On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭19‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.19.5.ESV

Ebaptisthesan is the aorist indicative passive form of baptizo. So, it indicates an action that has already occurred. When it says “On hearing this” and then uses a verb that indicates an action that has already taken place how would you view that?

Yes,, that is why it says be baptised for remission of sin.

but the issue is, they recieved the HS because they repented.. BEFORE they God baptised..

so you must interpret eis (for) correctly.

you can be 1000% convinced, you would still be wrong.

Go to the gospels..You trying to find things which support you.. You will remain in this state until you go deeper..