Shining Light on 1 Corinthians Chapter 15

[mailmandan]

Actually to teach water baptism is not a necessary part of the gospel message is to state something contrary to what Jesus clearly said. "He who believes and IS BAPTIZED shall be saved. (Mark 16:16)

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[mailmandan]

If so, why do scriptures state that remission of sin is directly associated with water baptism?

Acts 22:16
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

Acts 2:38
...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

Luke 3:3
3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

This baptism was in regards to/on the basis of the remission of sins received upon repentance. In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water for repentance." Now did John baptize with water "in order to obtain" repentance or "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Obviously the latter. Baptizing someone "in order to obtain" repentance does not make sense. We "repent first" and are then water baptized "afterwards."

Luke 24:47
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

*Notice "repentance and remission of sins". So what happened to baptism here?

Acts 19:4-5
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

In Acts 19:2, Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed? and their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was not the case in Acts 2 and Acts 10 and is the exception, not the rule). It did signify their inclusion into the church. Apostles were also present when the Samaritans (chapter 8) were included. God's purpose was to emphasize unity in the church.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Yes the had just received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Evidenced by speaking in tongues (Peter said they knew they had received the same gift as them because they heard them speak with tongues) No one is questioning whether they were saved. The point being made here is that after this even he still commands that they be baptized in WATER as is obvious by his words "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,"

I agree that they were already saved but you must also concede that they were baptized in WATER after this statement by Peter ... And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

The point is......it is Peter's idea. Peter's baptism yes with water) was the baptism of John (the baptist) a baptism for repentance, purification. This is not the baptism as practiced today - we do not practice a baptism of repentance. Paul had to contend with Peter over Peter's Jewish traditional thinking.

 

[Wansvic]

You present a good case for baptism in water serving as an "official" initiation rite, and a requirement for admission to the church but nevertheless we know that they were regenerated, born again, 'saved' before the water baptism as witnessed by the filling of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues. This was why they knew. And as a result they demonstrated "rebirth" to Peter and therefore they were ready for baptism in water.

Baptism in water should not be administered unless the person is known to be "rebirthed" wouldn't you agree?

Now some have taken that way too far and on the mission field many western missionaries have required and taught that new converts be taught for sometime and have a testimony of a truly converted life style before being allowed to be baptized whereby they then become an official voting member of the church. I don't agree with that concept. I think the scriptures teach an urgency of baptism in water upon confession of faith before they have had time to "prove" their sincerity over a probationary time.

I don't see in the word where it is taught that water baptism is done for admission to a church.

Again, I would point out that the exchange between Peter and the Jewish Council speaks to the fact they knew that water baptism was an integral part of repentance unto life. (Acts 11)

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

I don't see in the word where it is taught that water baptism is done for admission to a church.

Again, I would point out that the exchange between Peter and the Jewish Council speaks to the fact they knew that water baptism was an integral part of repentance unto life. (Acts 11)

Water baptism is the joining of us to Christ in his death. So yes and integral part of repentance unto life. Because in being joined to him in his death is also being joined to him in his resurrection.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Your response above has nothing to do with the comment of mine concerning your original statement below:

"I am not against water baptism as the symbol of the old man being dead and buried and the new man come to new life. I was baptized (immersion). It just does not have a place as a commandment."

It is not up to us to decide what is a commandment and what is not. Believing what the word states is the truth. That trumps a person's personal belief.


The following are my responses to the other comments in your post above:
1. Your comments concerning Jesus and the bibles silence concerning the apostles baptisms are not relevant to whether the word commands EVERYONE to be baptized.

2.The word does not reflect the common belief that water baptism is done as a public display.
The jailer and his family was baptized by Paul at midnight - Paul and Silas were the only one's present.
Philip and the Ethiopians's driver (as someone else mentioned) were the only ones present at the Ethiopians baptism.

3. People are actually buried into Christ's death in water baptism and come forth into newness of life according to scripture. (Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12)

Those people asked for it......probably still thinking in the tradition of John's baptism.
Yes it is up to us to discern everything.
You are confusing the baptism of repentance (John the Baptist's water baptism) and water baptism today which is optional and is symbolic.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

What a clever ploy of Satan; optional and then obsolete, (natural progression), so just as church no longer disciple they will no longer baptise, and thereby not be doing what Jesus commanded. Then believing as the devil's but not obeying.

The only time baptism is optional is when it's not an option. Dying in the desert with no water.

 

[Wansvic]

Because your trying to place things that happened into the book of Acts into Paul's epistles this is what's causing you to interpret 1 cor 15 in an awkward way . Paul is saying the Gospel is what he shared first. If Paul is reminding them of the Gospel he taught them and does not mention water baptism then we see that Water baptism is not what is necessary to be saved in any sense.We Would expect to see Paul labour on water being necessary all over his epistles .

Many scriptures focus on specifics related to different components of the gospel message; Jesus' sacrifice, repentance, water baptism, etc. To say that because not all are mentioned in any one scripture proves they are not necessary is not true. An example would be that a scripture is silent about the need to repent but focuses on believing in Jesus' sacrifice. We know that a person is not born again without repenting even though the scripture didn't make that point. Understanding the word requires gathering all scriptures on a given topic in order to see where they fit in the big picture.

Also keep in mind that Paul's epistles were written to people who had already been born again. They give detail of what conduct God expects from His children. The letters also contain specifics about what occurred in one's water baptism, etc. This alone speaks to people having believed and obeyed the God-inspired commands without even realizing the enormous benefit of their decision until after they had stepped out in faith.

 

[Wansvic]

Water has never had any magical properties to save anyone . Its the object of our faith that saves . Water is not the ' object of our faith that saves.

The requirement to be water baptized is of God's design. Just because we are unable to see into the spiritual realm doesn't mean that nothing happens there when we obey God's command and do it.

 

[Wansvic]

For I delivered unto you FIRST of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 AND THAT he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5AND THAT he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 AFTER THAT he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 AFTER THAT , he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Notice the bits highlighted? Thats all that's going on here .

Paul's comments in the scriptures you note are given as evidence that that resurrection is a true phenomenon. As mentioned before the entire chapter is about resurrection principles.

 

[Wansvic]

The point is......it is Peter's idea. Peter's baptism yes with water) was the baptism of John (the baptist) a baptism for repentance, purification. This is not the baptism as practiced today - we do not practice a baptism of repentance. Paul had to contend with Peter over Peter's Jewish traditional thinking.

See Paul's actions in Acts 19. Water baptism was by God's design it is not Peter's idea.

 

[Wansvic]

water baptism today which is optional and is symbolic.

Please provide scripture that confirms your understanding.

 

[posthuman]

He questions why people are getting baptized for the dead if they don't believe the dead will be resurrected. Even though baptism for the dead is not biblical it speaks to the fact that born again believers realized their own water baptism played a part in their spiritual rebirth. And as such, they were doing it in hopes of changing the fate of relatives and/or friends who had not submitted to it for themselves before meeting their demise.

you say here, baptizing for the dead is not Biblical -- i agree. referring to people who do so, Paul says 'they' do this, not 'we' & he contextually uses the practice as an extreme example of cognitive dissonance, pointing out that such a practice is underpinned by hope of resurrection. so what kind of dummy is practicing this and simultaneously saying there's no resurrection??


since you agree that baptizing living people as proxies for dead people isn't a doctrinally sound practice, i am puzzled by your saying that "it speaks to the fact that born again believers.."
do born again believers baptize themselves for dead people who never believed while they lived, thinking that by such a ritual the dead will have their unbelief and condemnation transformed to belief and forgiveness of sin? no? then this doesn't speak to any facts about born again believers, at all.
the only way that 1 Corinthians 15:29 has any comment about legitimate, right Christian doctrine is if proxy-baptisms for dead people is legitimate, right Christian Doctrine. since you say it isn't, your statement is unjustified by this passage.

it's a bit like saying, Hindus do such and such, and what they do shows that Christians ((who do no such thing)) believe something that is not in the text at all. maybe it's in some other text, but the fact that unbelievers believe in it or do it has nothing at all to do with what actual believers think or do. right?


just really not seeing how your statements in the paragraph i quoted logically follow from each other . . ?
if people with bad doctrine were doing something false, how do their wrong actions teach right doctrine?

 

[posthuman]

you say here, baptizing for the dead is not Biblical -- i agree. referring to people who do so, Paul says 'they' do this, not 'we' & he contextually uses the practice as an extreme example of cognitive dissonance, pointing out that such a practice is underpinned by hope of resurrection. so what kind of dummy is practicing this and simultaneously saying there's no resurrection??


since you agree that baptizing living people as proxies for dead people isn't a doctrinally sound practice, i am puzzled by your saying that "it speaks to the fact that born again believers.."
do born again believers baptize themselves for dead people who never believed while they lived, thinking that by such a ritual the dead will have their unbelief and condemnation transformed to belief and forgiveness of sin? no? then this doesn't speak to any facts about born again believers, at all.
the only way that 1 Corinthians 15:29 has any comment about legitimate, right Christian doctrine is if proxy-baptisms for dead people is legitimate, right Christian Doctrine. since you say it isn't, your statement is unjustified by this passage.

it's a bit like saying, Hindus do such and such, and what they do shows that Christians ((who do no such thing)) believe something that is not in the text at all. maybe it's in some other text, but the fact that unbelievers believe in it or do it has nothing at all to do with what actual believers think or do. right?


just really not seeing how your statements in the paragraph i quoted logically follow from each other . . ?
if people with bad doctrine were doing something false, how do their wrong actions teach right doctrine?

@Wansvic unless you really do believe in proxy-baptism-for-dead-people ?

but you indicated you don't -- it might be instructive for everyone to explore exactly why don't you?

 

[posthuman]

The requirement to be water baptized is of God's design. Just because we are unable to see into the spiritual realm doesn't mean that nothing happens there when we obey God's command and do it.

i think the events in Acts 10 pointedly teach us that 'what happens in the spiritual realm' is not at all contingent on physical descendancy or physical water immersion.
Gentiles received the Holy Spirit without having received H2O baptism.
this reads as an enormously significant & profound sequence of events to the people who witnessed it in the time it occurred. salvation was here unquestionably demonstrated to be by faith to all who hear the word of God & believe

that represented a radical departure from commonly held theological views, particularly of the Jews like Peter who had grown up with an emphasis on lineage, works, & corporeal ritual practices.

 

[throughfaith]

Many scriptures focus on specifics related to different components of the gospel message; Jesus' sacrifice, repentance, water baptism, etc. To say that because not all are mentioned in any one scripture proves they are not necessary is not true. An example would be that a scripture is silent about the need to repent but focuses on believing in Jesus' sacrifice. We know that a person is not born again without repenting even though the scripture didn't make that point. Understanding the word requires gathering all scriptures on a given topic in order to see where they fit in the big picture.

Also keep in mind that Paul's epistles were written to people who had already been born again. They give detail of what conduct God expects from His children. The letters also contain specifics about what occurred in one's water baptism, etc. This alone speaks to people having believed and obeyed the God-inspired commands without even realizing the enormous benefit of their decision until after they had stepped out in faith.

Should we just add Noahs command to build an Ark ? Abraham's command to offer Issac ? Do we just add up all the commands and make that the gospel? Or do we recognise the transitions through and leading up to the normative explanation in Paul's epistles?

 

[throughfaith]

The requirement to be water baptized is of God's design. Just because we are unable to see into the spiritual realm doesn't mean that nothing happens there when we obey God's command and do it.

What if Noah understood the command as ' build an Ark and build tower to be saved? would he be adding to Gods message ? Would he have wasted precious time building both ? What about Abraham. What if Abraham offered up Issac and the servant ? would that have been following the correct command? Look at the mistake Cain made?
Look at 1.cor 1.21 and ask what pleases God to save a person . Notice its not believe and a ceremony .

 

[throughfaith]

Paul's comments in the scriptures you note are given as evidence that that resurrection is a true phenomenon. As mentioned before the entire chapter is about resurrection principles.

Yes the resurrection happened of course .

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

What if Noah understood the command as ' build an Ark and build tower to be saved? would he be adding to Gods message ? Would he have wasted precious time building both ? What about Abraham. What if Abraham offered up Issac and the servant ? would that have been following the correct command? Look at the mistake Cain made?
Look at 1.cor 1.21 and ask what pleases God to save a person . Notice its not believe and a ceremony .

What if Noah had symbolically built an ark, or Moses symbolically circumcised his son, or Abraham symbolically sacrificed Issac.
Wansvic isn't adding to the scriptures, you are taking away from them.

 

[Wansvic]

What a clever ploy of Satan; optional and then obsolete, (natural progression), so just as church no longer disciple they will no longer baptise, and thereby not be doing what Jesus commanded. Then believing as the devil's but not obeying.

The only time baptism is optional is when it's not an option. Dying in the desert with no water.

Immediately upon reading this the following thought popped into my mind:

Even then I wonder if the sincere seeker of God would be led to an oasis. One never knows.