Baptism

You mocking not me

Comandment-receive the Holy Spirit

And baptism spiritual changing for water baprism

yes he was sent to suffer for Christ name sake, for being a naughty donkey he was made the donkey of burden.

yes ok View attachment 263425

The truth difficult for many to listen already not to accept

Accept not possible

Apostle Paul was not sent by God to baptize in water

This is the point

When priests were baptized it was a symbolic cleansing before they assumed their duties,
commanded by God. I don't really see that as being different. Water does not wash away
people's sins. Jesus certainly had no sins to wash away. His baptism fulfilled all righteous
because the law commanded priests be baptized, and Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of
the law. Baptism did not originate with Christians or with John. To add to what I have said,
I will include something GQ says: Jews practiced baptism as a traditional act of purification
and the initiation of converts to Judaism long before the coming of the Messiah.

The difference is OT washings were symbolic as you mentioned. Whereas obedience to the NT command
of water baptism in the name of Jesus actually remits sin as stated within scripture. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

What did Paul mean by his comment that he was not sent to baptize? (1Cor. 1:17) Various scriptures prove Paul’s comment has been taken out of context by many.

It is clear that Paul’s statement points to his primary ministry being to preach the gospel. And water baptism in the name of Jesus is part of that message: Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 8:35-40, 10:44-48, 16:14-15, 16:28-33, 18:6-10, 19:1-6, 22:16. Ananias commanded Paul to be baptized to wash away his sins. (Acts 22:16) In addition, Paul rebaptized the Ephesians in water even though they had previously been water baptized by John. That's because the NT water baptism was to be done in the name of Jesus. (Acts 19:1-6) This happened 20+ years after the command was first given at Pentecost. These records indicate Paul understood water baptism was part of the gospel message. Paul’s comment then could not have been intended to mean what some mistakenly believe.

Scripture informs us that Paul preached about water baptism but rarely performed actual water baptisms himself.

Paul mentions Crispus by name as one he did personally baptize. (1 Cor. 1:14) A careful study of the baptism of Crispus gives insight. The scripture reference is Acts 18:6-10. The record shows that Crispus AND ALL of those of his household and MANY Corinthians believed Paul's message and were baptized. (verse 8) This verse alone confirms Paul’s message included the need to be baptized in water. So of the entire group, the chief ruler of the synagogue, Crispus, was the only one that Paul actually baptized himself. (see 1 Cor. 1:14) Clearly, someone else was with Paul and performed the other water baptisms. Further it should be noted that on that very night the Lord gave Paul a vision. He told him to continue speaking/sharing the message without fear. (Acts 18:9-10)



Acts 18:6-10
And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (Paul’s comments in 1 Cor. 1:14 establish that this was water baptism.)

Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

I also am thankful for your gracious manner of discourse. And I'm not against widening any discussion. Invariably a good discussion will branch out in many directions.
I generally don't use terms like election and predestination in my discussions of salvation. From a biblical perspective, I'm not opposed to doing so. They are biblical terms. From a practical perspective, they are hot button words and often lead to emotional responses rather than rational ones. I don't believe this is so with you, but in an open forum like this I hardly imagine you alone are reading through this thread.
You employ a very emotionally laden example designed to move the reader to compassion. I do believe it's an accurate depiction of what actually happens, in many regards. Helpless people have brought on their own destruction, and God alone is able to help. And the implication is that if he does not, how can He truly desire all men to be saved? I would offer an actual scenario. In the OT, God chose one nation out of all the nations of the earth to call His own. He does this purposefully to the exclusion of every other nation. Do you find God's desire for all mankind disingenuous because of this? Did God's desire that all be saved only begin with the onset of the new covenant? How do you reconcile God's desire and His actual behavior towards mankind?
As far as who made this choice, who was it? Did the nations have a say in this? To which nation does God say...come let us reason together? I read of only one. So it seems to me that God has always acted sovereignly in the affairs of men doing His good pleasure...Daniel 4:35. Noah found grace in the sight of the LORD...Genesis 6:8. And it has always been God who has initiated relationship with man and not the other way around.
So the question arises: is there unrighteousness with God? And the answer is found in Romans 9. And in my view, it is difficult for many to wrap their head around the idea that God is different than who they have believed He is. And the reason I believe is this: people can easily imagine that God is glorified in His exercise of love and mercy and grace, but stumble that He is equally glorified in the exercise of sovereignty and justice and vengeance.. It's not that they don't give intellectual assent to it, but believe that God's love will override His justice. But God's actual behavior says otherwise. 200,000 people die everyday. I imagine most die without the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, God hasn't unchained them from the wall.

Romans 9:30–33 (ESV): What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

I would only add that God opening our spiritual ears and eyes is the imparting of life...quickening.

I understand. However, I think the notion that God must save people so they may believe to be the inverse of what Scripture teaches. God saves people on the basis of their faith, not so they can believe.

We differ here. I also agree that God doesn't save people so they can believe, but I do believe he quickens people so they can respond in faith. And as much as you don't like the dead analogy, if you go to a cemetery, regardless of how loudly you speak, no one will respond. Likewise, no matter how loudly or how often you share the gospel, the natural man will not respond.

It always more difficult for those who have an answer for everything.

Especially those who don't wait for an answer.

View attachment 263427

Who knows the answer true not waiting for false one

Change word Greek baptism to immersion

Immersion into the name

Immersion into Christ or into Moses

Then you will understand better

Immersion into repentance not needed to one who repented already

New International Version
Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead
will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live

John 5:24-25

yes you shouldn't be mocking water baptism or the lords commandments

Apostle Paul doesn't have teaching about water baptism

Baptism into Christ is spiritual not by water

---

Baptism into name of Christ is to be called christian

Baptism into Christ not to be called but to be in Christ

We must accept scripture. And scripture reveals baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism. (Acts 10:47-48)

Many of Paul's letters address water baptism. He explained its purpose in great deal in scriptures such as, Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:12-15.

We must accept scripture. And scripture reveals baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism. (Acts 10:47-48)

Many of Paul's letters address water baptism. He explained its purpose in great deal in scriptures such as, Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:12-15.