Baptism

Well it does refer to people “coming up out of the water.” That does not necessarily mean immersion.

... Baptism is the NT sign that points to our being placed into Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

You err in thinking that physical activity on our part produces spiritual reality. The opposite is true. Spiritual activity on God's part produces physical activity on our part.

You, when you share Acts 2:38 you neglect to pair it with the previous verse. In verse 37 and prior, God sends a preacher, His word is preached, hearing is given, hearts are pricked, and wills are affected. It is to those so affected that the commands in verse 38 are given.

There were dire consequences for those who disobeyed the OT command to circumcise:

"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Gen 17:13-14


"And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, (Moses) and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision." Ex 4:24-26

I did not exclude verse 37 intentionally. My comment was relative to the instructions Peter gave in order for NT believers to be born again.

Again what scripture does and does not say:

"...let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:36-37)

Peter DID NOT say:
Repent and be baptized as a sign your sins have been forgiven.

Peter DID say:
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38)

I believe God's word. And it says upon belief of, and obedience to God's command to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus an individual's sins are forgiven. (Acts 2:38, 22:16; John 3:3-5) This is only possible for those who believe in Jesus and His sacrifice. (verse 36-37) Because of Jesus' sacrifice this can become a reality for everyone but not all will receive what He died to provide.

The best way to baptized. Any teaching on this please

There are always consequences for disobedience. But OT Jews were in a covenant of works. Any disobedience brought death. We are under no such covenant. The new covenant is not between man and God, but God the Father and God the Son. And it has already been fulfilled in Christ. It is administered through grace and once we are made a part of it, we are no longer under condemnation, for we have passed from death unto life already.

Well it does refer to people “coming up out of the water.”

This one went ever which way. Based on just what you asked there is no best way only way true way. Some will say ya have to be dunked others say you don't. Go to your Church tell them you want to be baptized. Or in some lake, river have at it.

"And Peter said to them, “Repent [change your old way of thinking, turn from your sinful ways, accept and follow Jesus as the Messiah] and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

I dont have time to respond to all these verses at this moment, however, I dont think your argument makes sense. Why would Paul tell them to repent and be baptized for forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit if it wasn’t something that would happen at that moment? Are you suggesting they weren’t forgiven either? How long do you suppose they needed to wait for God to get around to forgiving them? Weeks? Months? Years? Clearly the implication here is if they respond in this way, God will immediately respond by forgiving them and granting the Spirit. In fact, the text goes on to say,



The text in Acts 15 you quote is referring to The account in Acts 10. In Acts 11, Peter explains why they baptized the Gentiles. He makes it clear that they were unwilling to baptize them until they saw the miraculous sign of the Spirit falling on them which convinced they they should not “withhold” baptism. So, this was the first time Gentiles were being welcomed into the church and God gave them the sign of the miraculous gift of the Spirit because the Jewish believers were unwilling to baptize them.

Also, I think you are confusing the miraculous gifts given by the Apostles to believers by the laying on of hands. Nothing indicates these believers didn’t receive the indwelling Spirit at baptism.…especially when multiple Scriptures indicate this is the case. They were given the unique and sometimes miraculous gifts at the laying on of the Apostles hands…which is why Simon wanted the Apostles to lay their hands on him to give him those supernatural gifts. We shouldn’t conflate that with conversion.

I dont know what 1 Cor 1 has to do with this. The point Paul is making is that people were misappropriating baptism to mean that they were more important based on who baptized them. Paul is not saying he is glad they weren’t baptized…he’s saying hes glad he didnt perform it so they would claim special standing based on his name. If anything, this text shows that early believers put a great amount of weight on the meaning of their baptism. Unfortunatly, these Corinthians were putting their confidence in the person who baptized them rather than in Jesus.

Anyway, I’m out of time. Thanks for the response.

There are always consequences for disobedience. But OT Jews were in a covenant of works. Any disobedience brought death. We are under no such covenant. The new covenant is not between man and God, but God the Father and God the Son. And it has already been fulfilled in Christ. It is administered through grace and once we are made a part of it, we are no longer under condemnation, for we have passed from death unto life already.

This is works salvation. You add an act on our part as a condition of salvation rather than as a result of salvation.

It is not a works but a faith salvation. It is those who have placed their trust in Jesus that repent and submit to water baptism in His name. And believe it accomplishes what His word states.

Your post #141 misrepresents what Chaps actually said in a prior post. You should click "Post reply" and then type your comment afterward.

it read: "Well it does refer to people “coming up out of the water.” Also the word itself actually means “immerse.” The word baptizo is an onomatopoeia, which means that the word sounds out the act. bap-tiz-o is the sound water makes when you slap someone down it and submerge them. So, I’d argue there’s more evidence in Scripture that not only does Scriptrue describe immersion, but the word itself implies it. Furthermore, early church history shows us this is how ALL baptisms took place. It wasn’t until around the 3rd century that alternate forms of Christian ”baptism” started to be introduced (i.e. sprinkling). "

I'm making an argument from the obvious.

There is no evidence of immersion. If it was that important, the instruction would've been explicit.

Anything necessary for salvation other than faith is works. For an OT Jew it was required to be circumcised. But they were under the law. New covenant saints are not under a failed covenant of works. We are under a covenant we enter by faith. It is not between us and God as the old covenant was, but between God the Father and God the Son. Since the Son has fulfilled the covenant, there is nothing left for us to do.
Because you do not understand the difference between the two covenants, you confuse what each calls for. So long as you do, you will put forth a false salvation.

I'm making an argument from the obvious.

How is it obvious that there are infants in the household? Does every household have infants?

That is like saying that if someone today were to say, “Go immerse Joe” that someone would reply, “do you mean sprinkle him with water or dunk him, because you’re not being clear?” The word ITSELF means immerse. It’s the same as if I tell you to immerse someone. It cannot mean sprinkle because the word itself doesn’t mean and has never meant as much. So why would it need to be explained what the word itself describes? This argument makes no sense. Baptizo is the Greek word “immerse.”