So, how do you deal with the verses in question? How do you interpret them?
With exegesis or with eisegesis?
water baptism in Jesus' Name.
- Thread starter heartwashed
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
With exegesis or with eisegesis?
In John 3, Jesus never mentions baptism once. why if it was so important..
same in john 4, 5 and 6..
no, it is a work of righteousness. As was circumcision in the OT.. they both represent the washing done by God
No need. The words of Christ in Matthew 28:19 have been authoritative for almost all Christians for over 2.000 years. So once again you are promoting false ideas believed by a very small minority.
This was discussed in significant detail on a recent post. "Baptism, the simple version".
Scripture MUST agree with scripture. One does not supercede another to produce conflict. So, both Mat 28:19 and Acts 2:38 have to be in harmony even though they say something different. The bottom line point being, they both are simply implying that it's by the authority of either the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, or Jesus Christ. Makes no difference. Also, once the believer has confessed Christ, it's a moot point; Just baptize then as was done in the biblical record. No baptizer is recorded saying anything prior to the immersion. The only one saying anything or told to say anything was the one being baptized as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and as was told to Paul in Acts 22.
Scripture MUST agree with scripture. One does not supercede another to produce conflict. So, both Mat 28:19 and Acts 2:38 have to be in harmony even though they say something different. The bottom line point being, they both are simply implying that it's by the authority of either the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, or Jesus Christ. Makes no difference. Also, once the believer has confessed Christ, it's a moot point; Just baptize then as was done in the biblical record. No baptizer is recorded saying anything prior to the immersion. The only one saying anything or told to say anything was the one being baptized as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and as was told to Paul in Acts 22.
As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out that baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same SENSE Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5)
Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html
Multiple translations say saved THROUGH water. The Greek is saved "through" (di) water. (NKJV, NASB, NIV). The ESV reads ..eight persons, were brought safely through water. Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). So once again, the context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
Keep reading and don't merely stop at verse 20 and apply your eisegesis. Peter said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.
I properly harmonized scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. So once again, 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*
All I'm hearing from you is eisegesis and bias.
Are you a Oneness Pentecostal?
Did you properly harmonize scripture with scripture (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) before reaching your conclusion on doctrine?
Once again, 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.
Of course, it is a Scriptural Fact That "water baptism was for the remission
of sins" in the previous dispensation of ↑ "the law". ↑ So, today, in The
Dispensation Of The Grace Of God, that would then be UNdispensational -
ie:
Summary of: Three baptisms, Rightly Divided, Within God's Contexts
(Dispensations):
(1) Prophecy/Covenants/Law for ISRAEL:
water baptism was man's operation, Commanded by God
to John the baptizer, and then by Christ to:
►►► The Twelve apostles who Were Sent to {water} baptize! ◄◄◄
The TWO Main (of 12) baptismS =
A) water, For remission of sins/induction into Israeli "priesthood!":
(Matthew_3:5-6; Mark_1:4; Luke_3:3; John_1:31; Luke 7:29-30; Acts_10:37)
(Matthew_28:19; Mark_16:16; Acts_2:38, 22:16; Ezekiel_36:25)
+
This Is The Baptism That "Christ Performed" after ascending Into Heaven:
B) Baptism WITH The Holy Spirit, Poured Out By CHRIST, for
power, signs And wonders!
(Isaiah_44:3; Matthew_3:11; Mark_1:8, 16:17-18;
Luke_24:49; Acts_2:17-18, 38, 8:15-17, 11:16)
Prophecy/Covenants/Law
Q: Are these TWO "still Required" By God, for us, Today, Under Grace?
Bible Answer:
Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That DIFFER!” {online}:
(2) Mystery/GRACE! =
our "apostle to the Gentiles" for The Body Of CHRIST:
►►► Paul Was Not Sent to {water} baptize! Why Not?: ◄◄◄
Today: Only ONE Baptism = "BY " The ONE Spirit = God's OPERATION,
Spiritually Identifying members In (The ONE Body Of) CHRIST!!
(Ephesians_4:5; Colossians_2:12; Galatians_3:27;
Romans_6:3-4; ►►► 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJB ◄◄◄)
This then, Under The Current Dispensation Of Grace, would make the ONE:
"Baptism By The One Holy Spirit for the ( heart-washing ) forgiveness
of sins," (Titus 3:5-7) eh?
Amen.
Also, there is this study: UnScriptural or UNdispensational?
In Acts 2:39, who was Peter addressing? In regards to Romans 8:31, Philip proceeded to tell the eunuch the good news about Jesus, beginning from that Scripture in Isaiah.
There is a difference between the general call (Matthew 22:14) and the effectual call. (Romans 8:30)
WATER Baptism in the Name of Jesus is a valid Baptism however, so is " In the name of the Father And of the son and of the Holy Spirit.
Neither one save you. Baptism is an act of obedience for those who are Saved. One must come to faith and then be baptized.
Amen! Certain people may try to argue that the thief may have been converted, was water baptized, yet the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)
In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.
the text you used in 1pet 3:21
says :
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
1pet 3:20 has nothing to do with baptism.
No, those passages (John 3 and 4) do mention baptism in water.
I would suggest to every reader that it is expedient to be a Berean (Acts 17:10-11).
It is important to acknowledge the name if one is baptized in the titles.
There is one name in Matthew 28:19, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.
That name is revealed to us in Acts 2:38.