Praxeas & Company (Thief Saved?/Baptism Essential)

[pelathais]

So my question remains: did those who were baptized under John's baptism receive the same remission of sins as those baptized by the Apostles?

And the question doesn't seek to invalidate Christian baptism as your knee jerk reaction seems to say you fear. The disciples at Ephesus were rebaptized by Paul - for whatever reason Paul had to do so. And that's the part that I said I was "hazy" on. What is accomplished by baptism in Jesus name for those who (like the disciples of John) had already received the remission of sins?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So my question remains: did those who were baptized under John's baptism receive the same remission of sins as those baptized by the Apostles?

"the same remission of sins?"
Remission of sins is remission of sins.
What different types of remission of sins might there be?

Originally Posted by pelathais

And the question doesn't seek to invalidate Christian baptism as your knee jerk reaction seems to say you fear. The disciples at Ephesus were rebaptized by Paul - for whatever reason Paul had to do so. And that's the part that I said I was "hazy" on. What is accomplished by baptism in Jesus name for those who (like the disciples of John) had already received the remission of sins?

Good grief, Pel.
You're assuming a "knee-jerk" reaction, and some kind of "fear" on my part.
Fear of what?
Nothing you said would serve to "invalidate Christian baptism" so I have no idea what you're really talking about there.

I simply refused to follow your train of thought, which was based on you "filling in the gaps" by using your own logic, instead of following what was shown or not shown to us in scripture.
---

Anyway, dealing with the core issue of your question...

Originally Posted by pelathais

The disciples at Ephesus were rebaptized by Paul - for whatever reason Paul had to do so. And that's the part that I said I was "hazy" on. What is accomplished by baptism in Jesus name for those who (like the disciples of John) had already received the remission of sins?

Well, besides the remission of sins, we know that Paul spoke of baptism as 1...being buried with him (thus identifying with his death, burial, resurrection)...

(Rom 6:3)
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

and...

2... Paul also referred to baptism as being a New Testament circumcision, (literally, the "circumcision made without hands", "the circumcision of Christ"). This in a sense is a spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant, as opposed to the fleshly circumcision under the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenants (Col 2;11-12)

11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Those are 2 key things spoken of about Jesus name baptism that were never spoken of regarding John's baptism.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So my question remains: did those who were baptized under John's baptism receive the same remission of sins as those baptized by the Apostles?

And the question doesn't seek to invalidate Christian baptism as your knee jerk reaction seems to say you fear. The disciples at Ephesus were rebaptized by Paul - for whatever reason Paul had to do so. And that's the part that I said I was "hazy" on. What is accomplished by baptism in Jesus name for those who (like the disciples of John) had already received the remission of sins?

Well if we go by what you said in a prior post, they needed to believe and be baptized into the One who was to come to have those sins remitted. It's the blood of Christ, the One who was to come that remits sins.