The conversion of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16.

[Beckworth]

People were baptized pretty much sraight away then. Not because it was part of their salvation, but because people were much less hesitant about it.

Water baptism for salvation is not a christian doctrine. Its a sign of a cult.

Read the book of John and try to find water baptism in it.

What about Romans 10?

John chapter 3..mention of water.. is amniotic fluid of the womb because that is what the subject is.

I can show you multiple scriptures where God says that baptism saves us. Please show me just one scriptures that says it does not. And just using a verse that says we are saved by faith is not the same thing as saying we are not saved by baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves us. Now show me where it says “baptism does not save us.”” And if you could find such a scripture then we would have a contradiction in the Bible and how could we trust anything it says? I am familiar with all the verses that say we are saved by faith and I agree that faith is necessary for salvation. So no need to prove baptism does not save by just quoting scriptures about faith. Jesus says that belief AND/PLUS baptism saves us. So the burden of proof is on you to show FROM THE SCRIPTURES that baptism does not save us. No one is saying that faith does not save or is necessary. We all agree that it is. We are saying that, just like Jesus said, He that believes AND is baptised shall be saved. Mark 16:16. So please confine your scriptures to those that deal with baptism not faith.

Even if water baptism was not found in the book of John, how does that prove anything. There are 27 books in the New Testament. That prooves nothing!

What about Romans 10? What’s your point?just because confession is necessary that does not eliminates baptism, any more than saving faith eliminates baptism. God’s commands do not cancel out each other or other commands. There is more than one thing that saves us which is the point of James 2:24- we are not saved by faith only. It wouldn’t matter if Jesus said we are saved by 10 things. If that’s what God says, then that
Woujd be what we must believe and do.

No, there is nothing in John 3 that indicates Jesus is talking about a physical birth. Just the opposite. He is talking about a SPIRITUAL birth. It was Nicademas who thought he meant a “physical” birth. The water that Jesus is talking about is baptism. That is easy to prove because the “new birth” that Jesus is talking about is a “spiritual” birth—NOT A PHYSICAL ONE. Jesus is talking about a spiritual new birth—not a physical new birth. He would not have used “amniotic fluid to represent a “spiritual” birth. The only thing that fits here is baptism. Especially since the picture of water baptism in Romans 6 shows a person being “raised up out of the waters of baptism to “walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE.” That’s your spiritual new birth right there. A new life is being “born again.” You can only miss this if you WANT to miss it. The subject of what Jesus is talking about is NOT physical birth; it’s SPIRITUAL BUTTH. It’s Nicademas who is talking about physical birth—not Christ. They are not talking about the same thing.

 

[Beckworth]

In John 3, When Jesus said we must be born of water and the Spirit,, He was talking about a spiritual new birth —not a physical one. This harmonizes perfectly with Acts 2:38 where Peter told them that they must be (water) baptized to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those 3000 Jews were re-born spiritually by “water” and “the Spirit.” As Roman’s 6 says they rose out of the watery grave of baptism to “walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE.”

 

[wattie]

I can show you multiple scriptures where God says that baptism saves us. Please show me just one scriptures that says it does not. And just using a verse that says we are saved by faith is not the same thing as saying we are not saved by baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves us. Now show me where it says “baptism does not save us.”” And if you could find such a scripture then we would have a contradiction in the Bible and how could we trust anything it says? I am familiar with all the verses that say we are saved by faith and I agree that faith is necessary for salvation. So no need to prove baptism does not save by just quoting scriptures about faith. Jesus says that belief AND/PLUS baptism saves us. So the burden of proof is on you to show FROM THE SCRIPTURES that baptism does not save us. No one is saying that faith does not save or is necessary. We all agree that it is. We are saying that, just like Jesus said, He that believes AND is baptised shall be saved. Mark 16:16. So please confine your scriptures to those that deal with baptism not faith.

Even if water baptism was not found in the book of John, how does that prove anything. There are 27 books in the New Testament. That prooves nothing!

What about Romans 10? What’s your point?just because confession is necessary that does not eliminates baptism, any more than saving faith eliminates baptism. God’s commands do not cancel out each other or other commands. There is more than one thing that saves us which is the point of James 2:24- we are not saved by faith only. It wouldn’t matter if Jesus said we are saved by 10 things. If that’s what God says, then that
Woujd be what we must believe and do.

No, there is nothing in John 3 that indicates Jesus is talking about a physical birth. Just the opposite. He is talking about a SPIRITUAL birth. It was Nicademas who thought he meant a “physical” birth. The water that Jesus is talking about is baptism. That is easy to prove because the “new birth” that Jesus is talking about is a “spiritual” birth—NOT A PHYSICAL ONE. Jesus is talking about a spiritual new birth—not a physical new birth. He would not have used “amniotic fluid to represent a “spiritual” birth. The only thing that fits here is baptism. Especially since the picture of water baptism in Romans 6 shows a person being “raised up out of the waters of baptism to “walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE.” That’s your spiritual new birth right there. A new life is being “born again.” You can only miss this if you WANT to miss it. The subject of what Jesus is talking about is NOT physical birth; it’s SPIRITUAL BUTTH. It’s Nicademas who is talking about physical birth—not Christ. They are not talking about the same thing.

Different contexts here. For example: Romans 6 baptism..what does it enter the believer into aside from water?

John 3.. Nicodemus is talking about being born again in the mothers womb..amniotic fluid.

Jesus adds you get born that way..and then again by the Spirit...later..

Jesus did not disagree with physical birth..
but added spiritual birth.

Acts 2:38..again.. is about getting something 'for' already being there.

Like medicine for a cold..the cold is already there.

So salvation is already there before baptism.

Baptism 'for ' , 'because of' already being saved.

 

[Gideon300]

I can show you multiple scriptures where God says that baptism saves us. Please show me just one scriptures that says it does not. And just using a verse that says we are saved by faith is not the same thing as saying we are not saved by baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves us. Now show me where it says “baptism does not save us.”” And if you could find such a scripture then we would have a contradiction in the Bible and how could we trust anything it says? I am familiar with all the verses that say we are saved by faith and I agree that faith is necessary for salvation. So no need to prove baptism does not save by just quoting scriptures about faith. Jesus says that belief AND/PLUS baptism saves us. So the burden of proof is on you to show FROM THE SCRIPTURES that baptism does not save us. No one is saying that faith does not save or is necessary. We all agree that it is. We are saying that, just like Jesus said, He that believes AND is baptised shall be saved. Mark 16:16. So please confine your scriptures to those that deal with baptism not faith.

Even if water baptism was not found in the book of John, how does that prove anything. There are 27 books in the New Testament. That prooves nothing!

What about Romans 10? What’s your point?just because confession is necessary that does not eliminates baptism, any more than saving faith eliminates baptism. God’s commands do not cancel out each other or other commands. There is more than one thing that saves us which is the point of James 2:24- we are not saved by faith only. It wouldn’t matter if Jesus said we are saved by 10 things. If that’s what God says, then that
Woujd be what we must believe and do.

No, there is nothing in John 3 that indicates Jesus is talking about a physical birth. Just the opposite. He is talking about a SPIRITUAL birth. It was Nicademas who thought he meant a “physical” birth. The water that Jesus is talking about is baptism. That is easy to prove because the “new birth” that Jesus is talking about is a “spiritual” birth—NOT A PHYSICAL ONE. Jesus is talking about a spiritual new birth—not a physical new birth. He would not have used “amniotic fluid to represent a “spiritual” birth. The only thing that fits here is baptism. Especially since the picture of water baptism in Romans 6 shows a person being “raised up out of the waters of baptism to “walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE.” That’s your spiritual new birth right there. A new life is being “born again.” You can only miss this if you WANT to miss it. The subject of what Jesus is talking about is NOT physical birth; it’s SPIRITUAL BUTTH. It’s Nicademas who is talking about physical birth—not Christ. They are not talking about the same thing.

There is spiritual baptism which is the Holy Spirit putting us into Christ. If we receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, it is Christ putting us into the Holy Spirit. Water Baptism is symbolic, representing our death and resurrection with Christ. It does not save us in the sense of being born again. The word "save" here means deliver, not give us eternal life.

The new Christian should be baptised in water, preferably by immersion. However, common sense says that baptism does not save us. Was the thief on the cross baptised? Plainly not. A group of Australians on death row in Indonesia were born again. They were refused permission to be baptised. They led many to Jesus by their witness and changed lives. They were executed before they were baptised. Were they rejected by God because they were not baptised? That's just silly.

God's judgement firstly is are we alive or dead. The dead in trespass and sin go to eternal existence without Christ - even if they were baptised. The living will dwell with Lord Jesus forever. I knew nothing of baptism when I was first saved. When I discovered baptism, I chose to obey the command. I was already born again. I was in the military at the time. What if I had died before I was baptised? God is not going to send anyone who is born again to hell.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

There is spiritual baptism which is the Holy Spirit putting us into Christ. If we receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, it is Christ putting us into the Holy Spirit. Water Baptism is symbolic, representing our death and resurrection with Christ. It does not save us in the sense of being born again. The word "save" here means deliver, not give us eternal life.

The new Christian should be baptised in water, preferably by immersion. However, common sense says that baptism does not save us. Was the thief on the cross baptised? Plainly not. A group of Australians on death row in Indonesia were born again. They were refused permission to be baptised. They led many to Jesus by their witness and changed lives. They were executed before they were baptised. Were they rejected by God because they were not baptised? That's just silly.

God's judgement firstly is are we alive or dead. The dead in trespass and sin go to eternal existence without Christ - even if they were baptised. The living will dwell with Lord Jesus forever. I knew nothing of baptism when I was first saved. When I discovered baptism, I chose to obey the command. I was already born again. I was in the military at the time. What if I had died before I was baptised? God is not going to send anyone who is born again to hell.

The thief on the cross didn't have the opportunity to be baptized because he was dying on a cross so Jesus didn't push him on that. So baptism is for every believer who has opportunity to do so. The Lord Jesus did so even when he didn't need to be baptized. The Father and the Holy Spirit actually showed up at His baptism - the appearance is a very rare event - it showed that the baptism was a big deal to them. And if they went to all that trouble, I figured that I should do that too if it meant so much to them.

I also think it's a test. It is such a small act of obedience - if a person isn't willing to obey God on that when they have opportunity to do so, what else will they disobey God on?

My Mom is a young Christian but she refuses to be baptized I think because she's shy. But I'm pretty shy too - being plunged into a tub full of water publicly is very challenging for shy people, but I did it anyway, because I knew it would please the Lord. But with my Mom, I'm starting to see that she picks and chooses what to believe in the Bible like it's a Chinese buffet - take what she wants and leave the rest. For example, my Mom LOVES money and because of that, she refuses to believe that the mark of the beast will exist. She might take the mark because she doesn't want to believe that taking the mark shows that she trusts the antichrist system all along and not God. I keep praying for her though, but who knows? She's old - she might not be there for the great tribulation.

So yeah anyway, I think baptism is also a test of whether we take God seriously or think following what He says is just "optional".


🎯

 

[HeIsHere]

Nicodemus talks about entering a mothers womb the second time. Jesus follows that with being born that way..and then by the Spirit.

Born physically then later believing on Jesus Christ

Agree, the analogy in the passage is clear.. physical birth (once) / spiritual birth (once)

 

[HeIsHere]

No one is saying that faith does not save or is necessary.

What you are saying is the all atoning work of Christ Jesus received by faith is insufficient to save.

 

[shittim]

People were baptized pretty much straight away then. Not because it was part of their salvation, but because people were much less hesitant about it.

Water baptism for salvation is not a christian doctrine. Its a sign of a cult.

Read the book of John and try to find water baptism in it.

What about Romans 10?

John chapter 3..mention of water.. is amniotic fluid of the womb because that is what the subject is.

Jesus was baptized-He was sent to model how we are to live.

 

[Gideon300]

The thief on the cross didn't have the opportunity to be baptized because he was dying on a cross so Jesus didn't push him on that. So baptism is for every believer who has opportunity to do so. The Lord Jesus did so even when he didn't need to be baptized. The Father and the Holy Spirit actually showed up at His baptism - the appearance is a very rare event - it showed that the baptism was a big deal to them. And if they went to all that trouble, I figured that I should do that too if it meant so much to them.

I also think it's a test. It is such a small act of obedience - if a person isn't willing to obey God on that when they have opportunity to do so, what else will they disobey God on?

My Mom is a young Christian but she refuses to be baptized I think because she's shy. But I'm pretty shy too - being plunged into a tub full of water publicly is very challenging for shy people, but I did it anyway, because I knew it would please the Lord. But with my Mom, I'm starting to see that she picks and chooses what to believe in the Bible like it's a Chinese buffet - take what she wants and leave the rest. For example, my Mom LOVES money and because of that, she refuses to believe that the mark of the beast will exist. She might take the mark because she doesn't want to believe that taking the mark shows that she trusts the antichrist system all along and not God. I keep praying for her though, but who knows? She's old - she might not be there for the great tribulation.

So yeah anyway, I think baptism is also a test of whether we take God seriously or think following what He says is just "optional".


🎯

All our lives in some way is a test. We need to take up our cross daily. When was the last time you heard that preached? Most people have no idea what it means. Who obeys that command? It does not mean put up with your mother in law.

Baptism is important, but we are baptised because we are saved, not in order to be saved. Peter preached to Cornelius and his household. The Holy Spirit came on them while Peter was preaching. Obviously Cornelius and his household accepted Christ. The Holy Spirit does not empower unbelievers. After that, Peter ordered them to be baptised. Acts 10.

 

[Gideon300]

I can show you multiple scriptures where God says that baptism saves us. Please show me just one scriptures that says it does not. And just using a verse that says we are saved by faith is not the same thing as saying we are not saved by baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves us. Now show me where it says “baptism does not save us.”” And if you could find such a scripture then we would have a contradiction in the Bible and how could we trust anything it says? I am familiar with all the verses that say we are saved by faith and I agree that faith is necessary for salvation. So no need to prove baptism does not save by just quoting scriptures about faith. Jesus says that belief AND/PLUS baptism saves us. So the burden of proof is on you to show FROM THE SCRIPTURES that baptism does not save us. No one is saying that faith does not save or is necessary. We all agree that it is. We are saying that, just like Jesus said, He that believes AND is baptised shall be saved. Mark 16:16. So please confine your scriptures to those that deal with baptism not faith.

Even if water baptism was not found in the book of John, how does that prove anything. There are 27 books in the New Testament. That prooves nothing!

What about Romans 10? What’s your point?just because confession is necessary that does not eliminates baptism, any more than saving faith eliminates baptism. God’s commands do not cancel out each other or other commands. There is more than one thing that saves us which is the point of James 2:24- we are not saved by faith only. It wouldn’t matter if Jesus said we are saved by 10 things. If that’s what God says, then that
Woujd be what we must believe and do.

No, there is nothing in John 3 that indicates Jesus is talking about a physical birth. Just the opposite. He is talking about a SPIRITUAL birth. It was Nicademas who thought he meant a “physical” birth. The water that Jesus is talking about is baptism. That is easy to prove because the “new birth” that Jesus is talking about is a “spiritual” birth—NOT A PHYSICAL ONE. Jesus is talking about a spiritual new birth—not a physical new birth. He would not have used “amniotic fluid to represent a “spiritual” birth. The only thing that fits here is baptism. Especially since the picture of water baptism in Romans 6 shows a person being “raised up out of the waters of baptism to “walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE.” That’s your spiritual new birth right there. A new life is being “born again.” You can only miss this if you WANT to miss it. The subject of what Jesus is talking about is NOT physical birth; it’s SPIRITUAL BUTTH. It’s Nicademas who is talking about physical birth—not Christ. They are not talking about the same thing.

The events of Acts 10 destroys the idea that we must be baptised in water to be saved. Cornelius and co were saved and Peter then commanded them to be baptised.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

What you are saying is the all atoning work of Christ Jesus received by faith is insufficient to save.

In scripture, water baptism is directly related to receiving Christ Jesus by faith.

Mar 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Why do people have a problem with water baptism when it was ordained by Jesus himself?

Are any of you greater than Christ?

As for me, I will stick with what Jesus and the Apostles not only taught, but also regularly did.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The events of Acts 10 destroys the idea that we must be baptised in water to be saved. Cornelius and co were saved and Peter then commanded them to be baptised.

It doesn't destroy it because Saul was also filled with the spirit, but was rejected by God for disobedience

Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured [it] upon his head, and kissed him, and said, [Is it] not because the LORD hath anointed thee [to be] captain over his inheritance? 1 Samuel 10:1​

​

And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and thou shalt be turned into another man. 1 Samuel 10:6​

​

And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. 1 Samuel 10:10​

​

And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel. 1 Samuel 15:26​

 

[Beckworth]

It is not cultic at all. Instead, it is the answer of a good conscience towards God.

1Pe 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22
Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Anyone who is truly seeking salvation through Christ, and who truly understands (conscience or with knowledge) the significance of Christ's resurrection and ascension, and how it pertains to angels, authorities, and powers being made subject unto him, will, in good conscience, be water baptized.

Those who do not possess such knowledge may not see the significance of water baptism, but it is significant, nonetheless.

Also, those who do possess such knowledge, yet refuse to be water baptized, are giving the wrong answer of a bad conscience towards God.

Different contexts here. For example: Romans 6 baptism..what does it enter the believer into aside from water?




John 3.. Nicodemus is talking about being born again in the mothers womb..amniotic fluid.

Jesus adds you get born that way..and then again by the Spirit...later..

Jesus did not disagree with physical birth..
but added spiritual birth.

Acts 2:38..again.. is about getting something 'for' already being there.

Like medicine for a cold..the cold is already there.

So salvation is already there before baptism.

Baptism 'for ' , 'because of' already being saved.

Romans 6, verses 3 & 4 says we are baptized into His “death”. That’s what we enter into. Where did Jesus shed His blood?? In His death. This is the only place where we can come into contact with the blood of Jesus that cleanses us of our sins. This is why Peter says Baptism saves us. This is also why EVERY conversion in the book of Acts (and also Corinthians) includes baptism. You can’t say that about “faith”, ”, even though I believe it is necessary; but EVERYONE includes baptism. This is why also Ananias told Saul to “… be baptized and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS.” The evidence for the necessity of baptism in the scriptures is overwhelming. Nowhere in the New Testament does it even “hint” that baptism is unnecessary.

That baptism does not save is a lie perpetrated by Satan. Satan always says the OPPOSITE of what God says. From the very beginning in the garden of Eden. God said, (If you eat of this tree). YOU SHALL DIE! Satan comes along and says, “YOU SHALL NOT DIE!” You have the same choice that Adam and Eve had: you can believe what God says in 1 Peter 3:21 “BAPTISM DOES NOW SAVE US.” Or you can believe Satan’s lie that “BAPTISM DOES NOT SAVE US.” This is what it boils down to. Who are you going to believe? You KNOW what the Holy Spirit says in 1 Peter 3:21. Anything contrary to that has to be from Satan.

There is no evidence in John 3 that Jesus is talking about “amniotic fluid!” If it were not so serious—that woujd be funny! The very idea! Jesus is talking about what Peter is talking about in Acts 2:38. “…be baptized …and you will receive the …Spirit. Instead of assigning some ridiculous interpretation of your own, let the Bible interpret the Bible. The “water” and the “Spirit” in John 3, are the same “water” and “Spirit” in Acts 2:38. You cannot prove Jesus was talking about “amniotic fluid. That, again, comes from Satan. It is his job to deceive,

Jesus talks about those who do not love “the truth” in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, and He says He will let you believe a “lie” and be condemned because you did not love “The truth” enough to receive (believe) His words. I am not your enemy. I love your soul enough that I am trying to convince you to believe what God has said (1 Peter 3:21) instead of what men are teaching you. Examine your doctrine. Is it in harmony with what God has said? Or does it say the “opposite” of what God says?

Here is another example or “test” to know if you are following God or Satan. God says salvation IS”…NOT BY FAITH ONLY!” James 2:24. That’s in the Bible. That is God’s word. Someone is teaching the OPPOSITE of that. They are saying, “YES, SALVATION IS BY FAITH ONLY.” Guess where that comes from? It’s the OPPOSITE of what God is saying; and who do we know that ALWAYS says the OPPOSITE of what God says? And has been doing this ever since the garden of Eden. Don’t be ignorant of Satan’s devices. Choose God’s words in the Bible. Put your trust in HIS WORDS—not some doctrine that says the OPPOSITE of what God says.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Was the thief on the cross baptised? Plainly not.

Let's talk about the thief on the cross.

Luk 23:39
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
Luk 23:40
But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
Luk 23:41
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Luk 23:42
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luk 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

For starters, the thief or malefactor in question rebuked the other malefactor for saying, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." In other words, the only type of salvation that this other malefactor was interested in was salvation from his predicament, and not salvation from sin.

And what was the rebuke of the thief or malefactor in question?

"Dost thou not fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"

Unlike the other malefactor, and, sad to say, unlike thousands of professing Christians I have personally met, this malefactor who was doing the rebuking feared God. Like the thief or malefactor in question, we should all fear God because the fear of the LORD is not only the beginning of both knowledge (Prov. 1:7) and wisdom (Psa. 111:10, Prov. 9:10), but it is also by the fear of the LORD that one departs not only from evil (Prov. 3:7, 16:6), but also from the snares of death (Prov. 14:27).

Not only this, but the thief or malefactor in question understood that he was justly condemned, and this is why he said, in direct relation to condemnation, "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds."

This thief or malefactor did not stop there. No, instead, he continued on to say, in relation to Jesus, "but this man hath done nothing amiss." In other words, he saw Jesus as the spotless lamb that he is, and he sought salvation from his sins through him.

How do I know?

I know because he continued on to say the following.

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."

This thief or malefactor not only called Jesus "Lord," and we must confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord in order to be saved, but he also is the only person that I can think of in the gospel accounts who believed in Jesus' resurrection from the dead BEFORE he was actually resurrected from the dead. I mean, Jesus' disciples were all either sad, or afraid, or both when Jesus was crucified, but not this thief or malefactor. Instead, by saying "remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom," he was indicating to both Jesus and us that he believed that Jesus would be raised from the dead in order to one day come back to this earth to establish his kingdom here. Of course, we also need to believe that Jesus has risen from the dead in order to be saved.

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This thief or malefactor definitely met the requirements for salvation, and, therefore, Jesus told him, "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

My point?

Anybody who tries to use this thief or malefactor as an example of someone who did not need to be baptized had better take a good long look at this account because this thief most definitely would have been baptized, as an outward sign of his obvious belief in Jesus' resurrection, or as an answer of his good conscience towards God, if he had but been able to.

Seriously, just give it a rest, and stop looking for loopholes to ignore the plain teachings of both Christ and the apostles in relation to the necessity of water baptism for those who truly believe.

 

[shittim]

Recently got in contact with a friend after 30+ years, shared Spirit filled faith with him, he asked the neighbor pastor to be baptized, as he came out of the water he experienced what he described as a powerful electric like power through his body and told the pastor, responded "Sounds like this one took!".
blessings

 

[Beckworth]

There is spiritual baptism which is the Holy Spirit putting us into Christ. If we receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, it is Christ putting us into the Holy Spirit. Water Baptism is symbolic, representing our death and resurrection with Christ. It does not save us in the sense of being born again. The word "save" here means deliver, not give us eternal life.

The new Christian should be baptised in water, preferably by immersion. However, common sense says that baptism does not save us. Was the thief on the cross baptised? Plainly not. A group of Australians on death row in Indonesia were born again. They were refused permission to be baptised. They led many to Jesus by their witness and changed lives. They were executed before they were baptised. Were they rejected by God because they were not baptised? That's just silly.

God's judgement firstly is are we alive or dead. The dead in trespass and sin go to eternal existence without Christ - even if they were baptised. The living will dwell with Lord Jesus forever. I knew nothing of baptism when I was first saved. When I discovered baptism, I chose to obey the command. I was already born again. I was in the military at the time. What if I had died before I was baptised? God is not going to send anyone who is born again to hell.

So what “authority are you using to teach that the word “save” in 1 Peter 3:21 does NOT mean “save”? Yourself?? Am I suppose to just believe you over what God has said? I don’t think so. And even if I should agree that the word there means “deliver”, then deliver from WHAT? Deliver from destruction; deliver from death. Just as Noah was “delivered” (saved) from physical “death”caused by the water of the flood, just like that, we are “delivered” (saved) from “spiritual death by the water of baptism. I don’t see that you have helped your cause or changed what the Holy Spirit is teaching in 1 Peter 3:21. It is very plain what God is saying and what He means.

Do you realize that Satan has always said the OPPOSITE of what God says. From the beginning of time in the garden of Eden. What did God say? God said if you eat from this tree YOU SHALL DIE! What did Satan tell Eve? YOU SHALL NOT DIE! Isn’t that just the opposite of what God had said? Yes, that is one of his lies. Jesus said the devil is the father of lies. Satan is still lying today and using the some lie that he used with Eve— say the OPPOSITE of what God says. So GOD has said in 1 Peter 3:21 that BAPTISM SAVES US. But Satan tells us that BAPTISM DOES NOT SAVE US. Isn’t that just the OPPOSITE of what God has said?? Well, who does that?? Satan, of course. It’s right before your eyes.
Wake up!

Here’s another lie of Satan. He’s still using the same technique—just SAY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT GOD SAYS. God says in James 2:24 that salvation is NOT BY FAITH ONLY. But what does Satan say? Satan says “YES. SALVATION IS BY FAITH ONLY.” Isn’t that just the OPOSITE of what God says? Yes, it is. Well who does that? Satan is the one who has been doing that since the Garden of Eden. He is the only one who does that and if it is the OPPOSITE of what God says then you can be sure that it is coming from Satan. Be careful what you believe and who you follow. Just as the apostle Peter did not know that he was being used by Satan in Matt. 16:23, many people today do not realize that they are being used by Satan to teach his lies.

The thief on the cross was never commanded to be baptized because he lived under the old law of the Jews. Jews were not required to be baptized. The first time that “repentance and remission of sins” was preached was on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38 and that was 50 days after the thief had already died. Thief is not an example for us today. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Study your Bible. And if you know that the thief was not baptized then you know something that no one else knows. It’s very likely he was baptized by John the Baptist. Read Matthew 3:5-6–Judah, Jerusalem and all the region round about went out to John to be baptized by him. That’s a lot of people from many different places. Now read John 4:1- Jesus baptized more people than John the Baptist. So, tell me again how you know that the thief was not baptized?

Are youvGod that you can decide if people are saved or not? That is not your business nor is it mine. I can only tell you what God says through the Bible; and God teaches everywhere in the New law of Christ that baptism is necessary for salvation. You do not know whether people who are not baptised will be saved or not. That is God’s decision not yours. I would say, based on what God has said in His word that baptism is necessary for salvation, but God is the judge and He will decide what to do with people who are not baptized. I CAN tell you this: a similar situation is described in John 21. The disciples are worried about whether Jesus said that John would not die. A question that was none of their business. And that’s pretty much what Jesus told tgem—it’s none of your business. He says If I want to let John live forever WHAT IS THAT TO YOU? OR What business is that of yours? Then He said, “YOU FOLLOW ME. Meaning, you just do what you kniw to do and let me take care of John. So I would say to you: you need to obey what God has told you to do—take care of your own salvation and let God take care of those people who did not obey him in baptism. We are not the judge of those people.

 

[Aaron56]

It has been suggested that Jesus was baptized by John to show us how to live.

No. Nothing He did was for show or theatre. It was actually for a purpose under the Levitical Law.

When He said He was to be baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" it was Him recognizing His purpose toward God and man: as the Lamb of God.

John was a member of the Levitical priesthood. Jesus was the sacrifice to be given to God. By His own choice, Jesus became a living-sacrifice and gave His life to God. It was at this point He became worthy to carry the grace of God as the mature Son of God... the only Begotten Son.

So Jesus says to John: "Wash me" as all animals were washed for sacrifice. Jesus did not require His "inward parts" to be washed because He had no sin, only His legs. So John, a Levitical Priest given the right to make such sacrifices, washes Jesus signifying John's acceptable valuation of the sacrifice.

This fulfilled the "righteousness of the Levitical Law", not as a show of what to do under a different covenant and under a different priesthood (Melchizedek).

We know God accepted Jesus as a living sacrifice because of His response "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". "Son" here is huios. This signifies a mature son, not a child. A huios son would be given the right to represent his father in all things.

We, as believers, are called to do the same thing:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service."

Interestingly, THIS was the moment "He gave His life for us". Certainly, the proof of that was His willingness to die for our sins on the cross.

 

[shittim]

It has been suggested that Jesus was baptized by John to show us how to live.

No. Nothing He did was for show or theatre. It was actually for a purpose under the Levitical Law.

When He said He was to be baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" it was Him recognizing His purpose toward God and man: as the Lamb of God.

John was a member of the Levitical priesthood. Jesus was the sacrifice to be given to God. By His own choice, Jesus became a living-sacrifice and gave His life to God. It was at this point He became worthy to carry the grace of God as the mature Son of God... the only Begotten Son.

So Jesus says to John: "Wash me" as all animals were washed for sacrifice. Jesus did not require His "inward parts" to be washed because He had no sin, only His legs. So John, a Levitical Priest given the right to make such sacrifices, washes Jesus signifying John's acceptable valuation of the sacrifice.

This fulfilled the "righteousness of the Levitical Law", not as a show of what to do under a different covenant and under a different priesthood (Melchizedek).

We know God accepted Jesus as a living sacrifice because of His response "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". "Son" here is huios. This signifies a mature son, not a child. A huios son would be given the right to represent his father in all things.

We, as believers, are called to do the same thing:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service."

Interestingly, THIS was the moment "He gave His life for us". Certainly, the proof of that was His willingness to die for our sins on the cross.

No, it was not "suggested" that He was baptized to show us how to live.
He was baptized in obedience to the Father, He only did what He saw the Father do, He only said what He heard the Father say. He modeled how the Father wants us to live.
Your mistaking and misinterpretation of what others post may not be isolated to this one incident.
best wishes
best wishes

 

[Aaron56]

No, it was not "suggested" that He was baptized to show us how to live.
He was baptized in obedience to the Father, He only did what He saw the Father do, He only said what He heard the Father say. He modeled how the Father wants us to live.
Your mistaking and misinterpretation of what others post may not be isolated to this one incident.
best wishes
best wishes

You posted this before:

Jesus was baptized-He was sent to model how we are to live.

My suggestion that it meant "It has been suggested that Jesus was baptized by John to show us how to live" is accurate.
But I thank you for adding to it.

 

[Beckworth]

The events of Acts 10 destroys the idea that we must be baptised in water to be saved. Cornelius and co were saved and Peter then commanded them to be baptised.[/QUOTE




There is nothing anywhere in the New Testament that teaches that Holy Spirit baptism “. saves” anyone. Please give me the scripture that teaches that. There are only two times that God poured out the Holy Spirit on anyone: the first time was in Acts 2. It was poured out on the Jews, and it was a “sign”. To those Jews that God was with the apostles and approved the message they were teaching. The second time it was poured out on the Gentiles—Cornelius and his household -Acts 10. And just like it was a “sign” that showed God’s approval of the Apostles, this time it was a “sign” to the Jews that God approved preaching the gospel to the gentiles. In fact, it was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius that convinced Paul’s Jewish friends that God had accepted the gentiles as recipients of the gospel. Acts 10, Peter said the Holy Spirit fell on them (gentiles) as it did on us (Jews) at the beginning (Acrs 2). “when they heard these things…they glorified God saying, then God has also granted to the gentiles repentance to life.” It was a “sign” used to convince the Jews that God has extended the gospel to the gentiles. It wasn’t used for “saving” anyone. Why do you think Peter COMMANDED Cornelius and his house to be baptized? They weren’t saved until they were baptized for the remission of sins like Peter told the Jews in a Acts 2.; and until they had “washed away” their sins like Ananias told Saul In Acts 9, Why would Peter say one thing in Acts 2 and do something different in Acts 10. The Bible is consistent. It doesn’t teach one thing in one chapter and something entirely different in another. That Holy Spirit baptism saved Cornelius is just a man made idea. There is not a “hint” of that in the scriptures; in fact all facts in the story show that that is NOT true. If baptism is COMMANDED by one of Jesus’s apostles that makes it necessary to salvation—not UN-necessary. Your idea makes no sense at all. If they were already saved, at best Peter should have said I RECOMMEND. That you Get baptised when it is convenient for you. Which, by the way , is exactly what people today, who don’t believe baptism is necessary, tell people to do. There is no reason for him to COMMAND them to be baptized! UNLESS, they were not saved yet. Peter is being consistent with his teaching in Acts 2 where he says baptism is for remission of f sins AND. With his teaching in 1Peter 3:21 when he said that baptism now SAVES us. You would have Peter teach contradicting doctrines! The Bible is consistent in it’s teaching about baptism. And it all points to baptism being NECESSARY to salvation. The evidence is overwhelming.