Your bad exegesis has failed you once again.
You are the master of irony.
John's baptism was for-in order to obtain the remission of sins. "For" (eis) cannot mean "because of" for the Hebrew writer said "without shedding of blood is no remission" Heb 9:22.
Very interesting! I've heard people who attend the church of Christ say numerous times that before Pentecost while still "under the old law" water baptism was not necessary for salvation (in order to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith apart from water baptism) then say it is necessary for salvation after Pentecost, under the new law. Keep in mind that this baptism of repentance in Mark 1:4 took place BEFORE Pentecost while still under the old law, but I'm hearing you say that water baptism is necessary for salvation under the old law. So which is it? You and your church cannot have it both ways. In Mark 1:4, baptism is clearly for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance. Just as in Matthew 3:11, "I baptize you with water for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance," not in order to obtain repentance, which would not even make sense.
Yet at the time of John's baptism Christ's blood had NOT yet been shed. Therefore John's baptism remitted sins in promise for when Christ did shed His blood it flowed back to those that were baptized with John's baptism remitting there sins, so "for" cannot mean "because of" here...or Acts 2;38.
The blood of Christ remits sins and not plain ordinary H20. John's baptism was for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance. Luke 24:47 - and that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Acts 3:19 -
Repent therefore and
be converted, that your
sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the
same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us
when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, (BEFORE WATER BAPTISM - Acts 10:43-47) who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles
repentance unto life." *That is in harmony with salvation through FAITH (not through water baptism) before and after Pentecost (John 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..).
Absolutely the 'water' of Jn 3:5 is the water john baptized with and the baptism Nicodemus had no excuse not being baptized with rejecting God's counsel, Lk 7;30
Jesus did not say water "baptism" in John 3:5 but Jesus said "water, living water and Spirit" in connection with eternal life in *John 4:10,14; 7:37-39.
You can never prove from the context of Mt 3:11 that either pronoun "you" refers to mailmandan or anyone else alive today. 1 Cor 12:13 is water baptism Paul baptized with 1 Cor 1:14,16. the ONE baptism of Eph 4:5.
None of us alive today were baptized by John the Baptist which doesn't change the fact that John said, "I baptize you with water for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance not in order to obtain repentance, which makes no sense at all. Where is the word "water" in 1 Corinthians 12:13? Paul said by ONE SPIRIT we were all baptized into ONE BODY.. *SPIRIT BAPTISM. You don't even know the difference. Chapter 1 does not change what Paul said in chapter 12. *Notice though in 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul said - For
Christ did not send me to baptized, but to preach the gospel..
Jn 7 the HS had not yet been given so no way possible in Jn 3:5 is baptism with the HS with the recipient receiving the HS.
Again, when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect, so Jesus is not teaching the erroneous doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as your church does along with Roman Catholics and Mormons. John 3:5 says "water"; John 4:10 says living water; John 4:14 says fountain of water springing up into everlasting life; John 7:38 says living water; John 7:39 says Spirit. It truly amazes me to see just how many hoops you will try to jump through in order to accommodate your flawed biased church doctrine.
Your argument is down in flames trying take the water baptism out of Jn 3:5 replacing it with baptism with the HS.
The thief was not baptized with the HS, so he is lost?
Your argument is been dead and buried. Jesus said unless a man is born again (from above) he cannot see the kingdom of God. You are replacing "living water" with plain ordinary H20 and negating what Jesus said in John 4:10,14; 7:37-39. Just because the Holy Spirit was not yet given (the thief was not sealed with the Holy Spirit) does not mean the thief on the cross was still lost. He was saved through faith just as we are. With that kind of logic, you would have to say that EVERYONE prior to Jesus being glorified remained lost.
'WATER' in Jn 3:5 is EQUIVALENT to 'BAPTIZED' of 1 Cor 12:13 so there is your WATER BAPTISM that you refuse to see.
1 Corinthians 12:13 is
SPIRIT baptism that you refuse to see so your argument is moot. Roman Catholics, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals would agree with you though. You are not in good company!
For the second time you ADD the word "spirit baptized" to 1 Cor 12;13 when the verse does not say that. Your argument has no validity when you have to ADD to God's word and CHANGE it.
I didn't ADD anything. Paul said by ONE SPIRIT we were all baptized into one body.. THAT IS SPIRIT BAPTIZED. You replace SPIRIT with "water" so it's you adding and changing God's word to make it fit your biased church doctrine.
I already showed how the Spirit baptizes as Christ, Jn 4:1,2. Christ and the Holy SPirit do not baptize anyone personally but baptize by giving authority to the disciples to water baptize as Paul in 1 Cor 1:14,16 and Phillip in Acts 8. No need for the Spirit to send Phillip to water baptize the eunuch if the one baptism of Eph 4:5 is baptism with the HS. The HS could have baptized the eunuch without Phillip.
More faulty human logic which does not change the fact that by
one Spirit we were all baptized into
one body...
one baptism.
Great commission of Mt 28:19,20 shows human administered water baptism is how disciples are made.
We have here a command of Christ that we should go and make disciples of all nations, and then baptize them. Becoming a disciple of Christ is a heart decision that we make before we get water baptized. Water baptism does not make you become a disciple no more than putting on a robe makes one a judge. Putting on a judge's robe does not, in itself, make anyone a "judge." But, one who has been made a judge is qualified to put on "judicial robes" and thus declare his qualifications. We first choose to become disciples of Christ and then we signify this in baptism. Water baptism does not magically make us become disciples.
Fruit of the vine represented His blood the unleaven bread represented His body but nowhere does the bible say water baptism represents the salvation that has already occurred.
After reading Romans 4:11 and Colossians 2:11-12 it's pretty clear. Nowhere does the Bible say water baptized or condemned. Water baptism FOLLOWED the salvation that has already occurred in Acts 10:43-47. That is crystal clear, but you have closed your eyes and refuse to see the truth.
Robertson claimed baptism does not secure salvation never proved it and he had to make this claim after admitting "laver of regeneration/water" of Eph 5:26 Tts 3:5 refers to water baptism.
You never proved otherwise. There "is a reference" to baptism does not mean that water baptism is the cause of regeneration. Again,
Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3-6, the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it. Amen! What Robertson admitted to does not support your accusation.
Again Rom 6 shows it is water baptism that makes one "dead" yet one must be "dead" to be freed from sin verse 7 implying freed from sin/justification cannot happen without baptism.
Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that FAITH, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16; 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1, 2). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism
symbolizes and pictures. Righteousness is “imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification” (Romans 4:24,25). Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith, believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him).
If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by FAITH, not baptism. *Hermeneutics. Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs “through faith.” Christians are “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about “through faith” - and is
properly symbolized by dipping the new believer in and out of the water.
Robertson's commentary on Tts 3:5 "
Through the washing of regeneration (δια λουτρου παλινγενεσιας — dia loutrou palingenesias). Late and common word with the Stoics (Dibelius) and in the Mystery-religions (Angus), also in the papyri and Philo. Only twice in the N.T. (Matthew 19:28 with which compare αποκαταστασια — apokatastasia in Acts 3:21, and here in personal sense of new birth). For λουτρον — loutron see note on Ephesians 5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3-6, the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it. "
Do you see where Robertson said probably BOTH Eph 5:26 and Tts 3:5 there is a reference to baptism???
See also how Robertson refers to the baptism in rom as an "immersion"?
Reference as in the picture of the new birth, not the means of securing it. You are completely obsessed with water baptism. I'm beginning to think that your church is a water baptism cult.
So you agree with Robertson Eph 5:26; Tts 3;5 and Rom 6 refer to baptism, an immersion?
I agree that it's the picture of the new birth, not the means of securing it. I don't throw out Jesus' words in John 4:10,14; 7:37-39 as you do.
IF Robertson is not saying Eph 5:26 & Tts 3:5 refers to water baptism then why does he make the quick reference to Rom 6 to try and prove water baptism does not secure salvation?
As Robertson said in regards to Romans 6:4 - It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality. Robertson did not say that water baptism is the source of washing in Ephesians 5:26 or Titus 3:5 so your argument is moot.
Robertson's comm. on Rom 6:3 "
Were baptized into Christ (εβαπτιστημεν εις Χριστον — ebaptisthēmen eis Christon). First aorist passive indicative of βαπτιζω — baptizō Better, “were baptized unto Christ or in Christ.” The translation “into” makes Paul say that the union with Christ was brought to pass by means of baptism, which is not his idea, for Paul was not a sacramentarian. Εις — Eis is at bottom the same word as εν — en Baptism is the public proclamation of one‘s inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See note on Galatians 3:27 where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. "
Now for the word
“enduo” (put on). This word also appears in Romans 13:14 where we read, “But
put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill it’s lusts.” This exhortation is not to a sinner, telling him to be baptized to “put on” Christ, but it is written to Christians. Evidently then, baptism is not the only way to “put on” Christ. To “put on” Christ is to conform to Him, imitate Him. So it is in baptism; we “put on” Christ, conforming to Him in the ordinance that declares Him to be our Savior. So if we must “put on” Christ to be saved through water baptism, apparently we are not saved yet. We must also “put on” Christ by making no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts (Romans 13:14). Right? Let’s be consistent. The verb in Greek translated “put on” has the meaning of putting on a badge or uniform of service like that of a soldier. According to Greek scholar A.T. Robertson: “This verb is common in the sense of putting on garments (literally and metaphorically as here). In I Thessalonians 5:8 Paul speaks of “putting on the breastplate of righteousness.” He does not here mean that one enters into Christ and so is saved by means of baptism after the teaching of the mystery religions, but just the opposite. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by circumcision or by baptism. But baptism was the public profession and pledge, the soldier’s sacramentum, oath of fealty to Christ, taking one’s stand with Christ, the symbolic picture of the change wrought by faith already (Romans 6:4-6).”
Note how he admits this is water baptism but then to try and thwart that water baptism saves he then CLAIMS "Baptism is the public proclamation of one‘s inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism"
to try and take away the necessity of the water baptism in ROm 6:3. No need to make such a statement if he did not think Rom 6:3 refers to water baptism.
You can try all you want to twist Robertson's statements and discredit him but the fact remains - water baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation. FAITH IS. *You are not fooling any genuine believers on this forum.
1
