Please return Sensai.

Because of what Jesus has done, 'paid for our sins', we/everyone has been counted as righteous and been reconciled to God. That is our legal position, however we must walk thru the door (salvation/faith) in order to have actual relationship with our heavenly Father. Jesus said He is the "door" to the sheepfold.

An individual may have inherited (free gift) of millions, yet if the individual does not draw on that inheritance, he will continue to wallow in poverty and not live out any of his inheritance. It is still hid, however his physical life is not enhance by this inheritance.

Mizpeh must every verse speaking of baptism always refer to water baptism only or exclusively ....?

Where do you get this notion that water baptism activates the Spirit to regeneration?

John the Baptist was clear that what made Jesus baptism distinctive from his own baptism was not water ... but a baptism from above ... or Spiritual New Birth and immersion.

The efficacy is in the Spirit of Life....

31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." 32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

A look at Romans 6:

http://www.bible-truth.org/Rom6-whatbaptism.html

I would like to suggest that the reference is to both spiritual and water baptism. You cannot separate the symbol from that which it symbolizes. I believe Paul is using what water baptism signifies to strengthening his point of verse two, by reminding them of the purpose and significance of their water baptism.

Water baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection with Christ where the sins of the world were conquered and put to death. In reality this is not an either/or situation, because both spiritual and water baptism are in view. Paul was saying to the Romans that “God forbid that you who died to sin should continue on in sin to appropriate more grace. Remember what your water baptism meant in that it symbolized that you received God’s spiritual baptism in salvation and you were placed into Jesus Christ and to His death” (my expanded paraphrase).

In the following verse Paul continues to support his premise by reminding them that:

1. Because of their being buried with Christ in baptism they should walk in a new life (v. 4).

2. Because they have been planted in the “likeness” of Christ’s death which destroyed the body of sin . . . that they should not serve sin (vv. 5-6).

3. Paul uses the example of a dead person. “He that is dead is freed from sin” (v. 7).

4. Because we are dead to sin we should live for Him because sin has no more control over the believer (vv. 8-9).

5. Because Christ died to sin once and now lives unto God the believer should consider himself dead to sin and alive unto God (vv. 10-11).

6. The believer should not let sin reign in their body and obey its lusts, nor let yourself sin (vv. 12-13). 7. Because a believer is under grace and not under law then sin should not dominate his life (v. 14).

If we see the reference to baptism as spiritual baptism and which water baptism signifies there is no confusion and the illustration Paul is using is clear and well makes its point; Christ died to destroy the penalty of sin, which baptism signifies, and that was one reason for not continuing in sin. However, we must deal with the problem of those who see water baptism as being a part of receiving salvation. To answer the problem all we must do is to apply sound biblical hermeneutical principles. One foundational principle of interpretation is the all Scripture must be interpreted within the analogy of the faith. This means that God’s word does not contradict itself and that all God says is always consistent with everything else He has said. Scriptures such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5, and many other passages clearly teach that salvation is not acquired through ritual or any religious work. Baptism is a religious rite (work) and therefore has no saving properties and is not necessary for salvation.

Further the example in the New Testament is that water baptism always follows the exercise of saving faith and is a public act of submission that pictures and identifies the person being baptized with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and with the local congregation of believers.

Finally, both water baptism symbolizes Christ’s work of redemption on the cross. Our baptism is only a picture of what He did. The act of redemption could only be done by Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God. The whole point of baptism is to point to and picture Christ’s sacrifice and atonement for sin and it is simply illogical to try to present it as being necessary for salvation. Jesus’s death, burial and resurrection paid the price something we could not pay [or need to re-enact].

To use this passage to support baptismal regeneration is simply dishonest and a blatant violation of the New Testament teaching of salvation. Thus, those who hold to the position that this is sacramental water baptism have no biblical grounds to do so. It is spiritual baptism which is the sole work of God that actually places the believer into Christ and into His death. Water baptism is a proper symbol instituted by God to illustrate God’s action in salvation that could not be seen. Spiritual baptism and its outward symbol proclaims the same truth and cannot be separated. I like the way Robinson states this: “If we ask how this critical union was effected, Paul’s answer is that it is through baptism (Rom. 6:4) or, more fully, in baptism . . . through faith” (Col. 2:12).” In verse 3, the baptism is of water that symbolizes the spiritual baptism that Christ accomplished for the believer in His death, burial, and resurrection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was Peter's message at Cornelius' house? ... was it the same PAJC message that claims that water baptism causes remission of sin or activates the Holy Spirit to regeneration?

I think not!!! ... we have 3 accounts/witnesses of his message that day ... all from Peter's mouth ...

---------------------------------------------------

Witness #1 [Acts 10]

The first account is a transcript of the Gospel message preached by Peter at Cornelius home:

The only mention of water baptism here is that of John the Baptist's in verse 37 ...

but verse 43 ... tells us what Peter preached and believed would result in forgiveness/remission of sins. The same message he preached at Pentecost when he echoed the words of the prophet Joel and all the other prophets who proclaimed ... "whosever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

We know the sequence of events that then followed after those sitting in room heard and believed this message. They were filled w/ the Holy Ghost ... and then ... and only then were they baptized.

-------------------------------------

Witness #2 [Acts 11]

Peter then recounts this same experience at Cornelius' house and his message to a group of circumcised Jewish believers in Chapter 11.

Please take special notice that Peter in rehearsing his message remembered the Lord's words [ also John 1] when he made distinction between John's water baptism and the promise of a better baptism ... that of the Spirit.

He also says that the gift both the Jewish believers and Gentile believers received came through belief ... the Jewish brethren acknowleged that LIFE was granted by God to the Gentiles through repentance [v.18]

Please also note that Peter never says that forgiveness came from their subsequent water baptism or water baptism is necessary for the New Birth.

----------------------------------------------

Witness #3 [Acts 15]

Peter is compelled to recount his message and the response of those that gathered in Cornelius' house to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Peter sought to defend against those who felt that an outer ritual, in this case, circumcision, was necessary for salvation. Also, conspicuously missing is a stress on their water baptisms in this account ... for a guy like Peter that's "strong" on doctrine it's puzzling that it never even comes up in the conversation.


The first speech of the council was given by Peter who was no doubt wondering why the issue had not been settled in the eleventh chapter of Acts when he reported the conversion of the household of Cornelius as follows:

Peter again rehearsed how that the Gentiles had received the Gospel from him and believed, no doubt remembering his own words at the house of Cornelius: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43).

He goes on to say, not that baptism purified them ... but it was the Lord Jesus Christ through their faith in Him ... and that God Himself had verified this by giving them the same baptism of the Holy Spirit that the disciples received on the Day of Pentecost.

Peter knew that no one had ever kept the Law of Moses, especially those who were making the argument that day. He therefore wanted to know why the Judaizers were asking the Gentile disciples to do something that neither themselves nor the Old Testament fathers were able to do. He also stresses that their purification came by faith - not by water baptism.

Peter then concluded his argument by saying in effect, no it's not the baptism or a circumcision that saves them but ... GRACE:

The Apostle Paul confirmed this same affirmation when he wrote to the Romans:

Their Jewish hearts must be purified by faith apart from the Mosaic Law and
circumcision or else remain unpurified altogether. Peter would later take the position that these Judaizers were false prophets. Although they professed Christ to be the Messiah who died on the cross, they were denying Him by their gospel of circumcision and law,

as Peter stated:

Peter’s words silenced the multitude at the Jerusalem Council so that Paul and Barnabas could be called upon to give their report.


------------------------------------------

Where is the doctrine of baptismal remission/regeneration in Peter's message at Cornelius' house ...? Why isn't his doctrinal stress and message impetus the 3 step template offered by the W&S crowd? Why is there no mention of sins being washed away through a religious rite like baptism?

I know that my PAJC brethren will try to read in between the lines and ask us to make the "revelatory" connections they've made ... but even the most elementary reader of Peter's witness sees that the 3 step salvational process isn't the core of his spoken message to Cornelius.

Did he forget his notes on the New Birth at Pentecost?

J-Roc,
That is ancient and hilarious! Where in the world did you dig this up?

Wait.... you know, this was a demo at an ALJC Michigan District camp meeting. I remember the day. I gashed my thumb on the concrete.

My hair is a little grayer at the moment.

Thanks for the memories. Nowadays I'd be more apt to Jujutsu y'all :killinme

On to work....

This is putting limits on God where God Himself placed none. Sin is what separates us from God. Sin does not separate God from God. God is omnipresent. He can and does go everywhere. He fills everything. The only thing we can do is not worship Him or follow Him by continuing in lawlessness or "sin".

This is not "proof" that God does not use water baptism for the remission of sin. The blood does remit sin, I whole-heartedly agree, but if the blood stays dripping off of the cross, and never applied to the life of the believer, than it is of no effect. It must be applied to be of value for our redemption from the effects of sin.

So the blood is applied how and when, Kwai Q?

AW ... we do our homework.