Remission Of Sins Through Baptism

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by Rico

Sam, I have a hard time going along with the bolded part. It would stand to reason that, since Jesus sent out the disciples to baptize new disciples, they would have already been baptized before the day of Pentecost. Jesus also preached, "He that believeth and is baptized shalled be saved" so I can't see the disciples going out baptizing new converts unless they had already "fulfilled all righteousness", like Jesus did.

leap of faith? sounds good, but truth is, we don't know. Is that so hard to digest? Why do we need to make scripture fit our theology? There's all kinds of holes.

Were John's converts rebaptized into Jesus Christ once John died? (besides those Paul encountered), we know Nathaniel was John's disciple. John wasn't baptized of Jesus. The thief wasn't baptized. The five thousand were not baptized as far as we know by what was recorded.

I believe in baptism, but I don't need to add to the word to make it fit my position. It's possible they weren't baptized again, who knows but them?

If they weren't baptized, I'm confident they are saved by grace through faith.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by Sam

I agree with you on that, Rico. I just stated that some teach the disciples were not really saved until the day of Pentecost after they had received the Holy Ghost baptism and were water baptized.

This is the old "water & spirit" doctrine. When Jesus told Peter..."when thou art converted", they teach Peter wasn't saved until he was converted at Pentecost. I've heard this with my own ears by some UC preachers.

[anapko]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

[B]John baptized HIS disciples and Jesus baptized HIS and then HIS disciples went out and baptized others. [/B

Second, the bible never says Jesus never baptized anyone

How did Cornelius receive the Spirit? Same way King Saul did maybe?

Prax...your comments are completely adverse! No offense, but how could Jesus baptize his disciples and not baptize them?



And this comment that Cornelius received the Spirit like King Saul...maybe... is really low. The Bible clearly says that the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and his household while Peter was preaching...not " maybe " like King Saul got it! To suggest that those that receive the Holy Ghost BEFORE baptism was similtude to a degenerate is closed minded theology! The Gentiles did receive the Holy Ghost and AFTER Peter led them to baptism like they ( the Jews ) partook in after they received the Holy Ghost.

I appreciate your viewpoints Prax and hold you in high esteem, but I do take issue on this!

[Rico]

Originally Posted by staysharp

leap of faith? sounds good, but truth is, we don't know. Is that so hard to digest? Why do we need to make scripture fit our theology? There's all kinds of holes.

Were John's converts rebaptized into Jesus Christ once John died? (besides those Paul encountered), we know Nathaniel was John's disciple. John wasn't baptized of Jesus. The thief wasn't baptized. The five thousand were not baptized as far as we know by what was recorded.

I believe in baptism, but I don't need to add to the word to make it fit my position. It's possible they weren't baptized again, who knows but them?

If they weren't baptized, I'm confident they are saved by grace through faith.

You know as well as I do that credibility is everything when it comes to preaching. How seriously do you think the disciples would have been taken, telling others they needed to be baptized, if they hadn't been baptized themselves?

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by Rico

You know as well as I do that credibility is everything when it comes to preaching. How seriously do you think the disciples would have been taken, telling others they needed to be baptized, if they hadn't been baptized themselves?

Again, we don't know? I understand your argument and agree with the premise, however, we just don't know.

BTW, are you a dispensationalist? just curious.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by staysharp

Again, we don't know? I understand your argument and agree with the premise, however, we just don't know.

BTW, are you a dispensationalist? just curious.

What is a dispensationalist?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

The word translated "remission" means "forgiveness". When one repents of sin and obeys the gospel by being water baptized all charges are dropped and one is forgiven. Some people say you can be saved and love God without being water baptized in Jesus name. I say one can shack up with someone they love but without an official wedding they are still just shacking up. If one loves Jesus they will be water baptized.

Love followed through will lead to marriage. Repentance followed through (unto life) will lead to obedience, i.e. water baptism.

Dead men don't refuse to be buried.

Are you aware of any great number of people that refuse water baptism?

Just curious.

[anapko]

Originally Posted by staysharp

John wasn't baptized of Jesus. The thief wasn't baptized. The five thousand were not baptized as far as we know by what was recorded.

I believe in baptism, but I don't need to add to the word to make it fit my position. It's possible they weren't baptized again, who knows but them?

If they weren't baptized, I'm confident they are saved by grace through faith.

Very good points Staysharp! John the Baptist received the HG in his mother's womb. To naturally assume he followed that with water baptism is naive, simply based on Acts 2:38. Good Point SS, we are saved by grace through faith!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by anapko

Prax...your comments are completely adverse! No offense, but how could Jesus baptize his disciples and not baptize them?



And this comment that Cornelius received the Spirit like King Saul...maybe... is really low. The Bible clearly says that the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and his household while Peter was preaching...not " maybe " like King Saul got it! To suggest that those that receive the Holy Ghost BEFORE baptism was similtude to a degenerate is closed minded theology! The Gentiles did receive the Holy Ghost and AFTER Peter led them to baptism like they ( the Jews ) partook in after they received the Holy Ghost.

I appreciate your viewpoints Prax and hold you in high esteem, but I do take issue on this!

. The verse in question does NOT NOT NOT say Jesus NEVER baptized. It is at THIS point in His ministry that he did not baptize but only his disciples.

When one studies the verses I posted on discipleship you should see the point I stated verbatim. Jesus baptized his 12 then gave THEM authority to do the same. He cast out devils...he gave them authority to do the same. Mat 28 is a continuation of that. Go make disciples and baptize. Baptism and Discipleship. They go hand in hand according to the verses I already posted.

Jesus made those men HIS disciples and then those men with the authority of Jesus made others disciples of Jesus.

It is very simple. In order for someone to be the disciple of Jesus they had to be baptized....when there were no disciples of Jesus who do you think baptized them? Jesus did. Look at John. Whoever HE baptized became "disciples of John" according to Acts 19.

Paul was glad he did not baptize some folks because in their error they would have claimed to be disciples of Paul.

The reason why nobody became disciples of Peter or James or Paul was because they were baptizing in SOMEONE ELSES authority. That authority is the name of Jesus.

Jesus said "go and make disciples, baptising them in the name..."

Just look at all the verses I posted and once again I did not say "it does not say Jesus did not baptize" I said "it does not say Jesus never baptized"...what you have is a verse that is after Jesus called his 12...and if his 12 were disciples then someone had to baptise them. He could have baptized one and that one baptize the rest. But when you get the whole picture you might see this differently. Take for example Jesus washing their feet. He did not wash just Peters feet and then Peter washed the rest. These were His disciples. Taught and trained by Jesus...

I am not going to repost all the verses on baptism and discipleship, but they are there :-)

Next I did not say they received the Holy Spirit LIKE King Saul. That is putting words in my mouth and...lower than what you accused me of. My point is we should NOT limit God.

I never denied the gentiles DID receive the Spirit.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by staysharp

Were John's converts rebaptized into Jesus Christ once John died? (besides those Paul encountered), we know Nathaniel was John's disciple. John wasn't baptized of Jesus.

If Paul is any indication then ANY of the disciples of John that wanted to become disciples of Jesus were in fact baptized UNTO Jesus or in jesus name just like in Acts 19

The thief wasn't baptized.

probably not, but we don't know this. He could have been baptized by a disciple of Christ prior to his arrest and conviction. In anycase even if he is not this shows baptism is not an absolute. God can do anything with someone that has faith.

The five thousand were not baptized as far as we know by what was recorded.

Argument from silence. What five thousand are you talking about anyways?

I believe in baptism, but I don't need to add to the word to make it fit my position. It's possible they weren't baptized again, who knows but them?

Scriptures bear out that to be a disciple of someone involves being baptized too. Whether there is salvational properties in baptism is irrelevant.

If they weren't baptized, I'm confident they are saved by grace through faith.

That may be, if they died. However baptism is a biblical command and is never said to be an option.