Baptism

Rightly dividing the word reveals the truth. My prayer is that you will see that both water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin and receiving the Holy Ghost/Spirit are essential elements of the NT rebirth.

Who not baptized in the water cannot be born again?

The word states that obedience to water baptism in the name of Jesus is when a person's sin is remitted. Paul explained that baptism is when people are buried with Jesus into His death where their sins are destroyed.

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

...IF we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,..."Rom 6:3-6

You cannot die in water to the sin

Nonsense

Moreover resurrection not possible in water

Yes, we will likely just have to agree to disagree. However, if you claim faith is a “gift” from God, then certainly, you would have to admit that God saves people so they can believe the Gospel. For, if they cannot hear it without him quickening them, and they cannot put faith in it without his granting the gift, then it would seem they are saved in order to believe.

I agree that I cannot speak to the dead, but God can. And the Gospel is God’s word, with the power of God to save. So my confidence is not in my ability to preach or speak, but the power of the Gospel that I proclaim.

To say that water baptism is necessary for salvation is to say faith in Jesus is not enough,
It is to say that salvation also requires a second human being must aid Jesus in saving a person.
So if one cannot get a second person to baptize them they will go to hell.
Jesus does not need a second party included in the salvation of a believer.
If it is true that water baptism is necessary for salvation, that is saying what Jesus did on the cross was not enough.
It is to say He needs a second person to complete His work.
Jesus does not need your help to complete His work!!!

I don’t think anyone is arguing this point. The simple fact is that Jesus commanded disciples be baptized. We also see that God has tied a great many promises to baptism and that it is immensely powerful when the person being baptized recognizes that they are being buried with Christ and raised to a new life…with the promise of God’s Spirit.

This was a command given to the church and clearly part of the evangelistic message they shared…

I would never say that someone who isn’t baptized CANNOT be saved. However, I would really question how someone can read the commands of Christ and all the NT teaching on the subject and reject baptism. All I know is we are called upon to be obedient to God’s Word and trust his promises. It is shocking to me that people who claim to be servants of Christ would try to argue that his commands and the NT precedent of the Apostles are not only unnecessary, but a form of works based salvation.

Faith is a gift in that we do nothing to achieve it. God doesn't save people so they can believe. God quickens or makes people alive so they can hear. Hearing is where faith comes from. So I don't believe God saves people so they believe. That distinction doesn't resonate with you and I'm ok with that. But to characterize that as my belief is false.
But I have enjoyed our exchanges and look forward to future discourse. Grace and peace.

I believe I stated in my first post that it is the first step to obedience and will never be fully surrendered to Christ will for their life until until they are baptized.
And until one is fully surrendered to His will he will never enjoy all the blessing of this life nor will be used as Christ wishes to use you.
BUT, many have stated it is necessary for salvation,
Which is to say Jesus death on the cross is not enough.

Correction-------
My first post about obedience was in the other baptism thread and not in this one.
Sorry

I finally get what your saying.

I think you nailed it on how to explain it this time, 🙂

Where do you read that baptism is the “first step toward obedience”? I have several issues with this argument…
1. We don’t read anywhere in the NT where baptism is described as such.

2. If baptism is “obedience,” what happens if someone is “disobedient” with this regard? I imagine your claim would be “nothing” if your belief is that baptism is not required. So, by this rationale, baptism ultimately accomplishes nothing and there is no consequence for being disobedient to this command.

3. There is zero reason for the NT authors to link baptism to forgiveness, receiving the Holy Spirit, washing away sins, being buried with Christ, being raised with Christ, or the moment of salvation if it is to be viewed as an act of obedience that happens after the fact. Yet we see ALL of these links made in the NT (I can provide references if you wish). Why would the authors attribute these events to the moment of baptism if they are wholly unrelated, or that it could be actually dangerous to consider baptism as part of the process for entering the New Covenant?

The NT links baptism with the entering of the New Covenant in a similar fashion to circumcision and the Old Covenant. We enter the New Covenant by calling out to God for forgiveness, professing Christ as Lord, repenting and identifying with his death and resurrection in baptism. This is how the NT describes how all believers entered this covenant and became part of the Church. It is never spoken of as a symbol, outward sign or act of obedience. Nor do we see anything in the NT resembling a “sinner’s prayer” or altar call for salvation. These had a lot more to do with modern Christianity’s tent revivals and evangelism crusades to quantify how many were getting “saved.”

There are at least 21 different Greek words translated for in the English, each having a different application.
As used in Acts 2:38 it means in view to or respect to or because of.
Because of a person accepting Jesus as Savior (being saved) they are to be baptized.
If they are not baptized, they are still saved and will spend eternity with Jesus.
This agrees with Scriptures that states salvation is a gift of God received by those who have faith.
To say baptism is a part of receiving the gift of salvation is to say that Jesus death on the cross is not enough.
That a person must have another person complete the salvation by baptizing the person who believed.
Jesus did all that is necessary for my salvation.
I do not need a second person to complete the process.

This is not accurate. I know Koine Greek and studied it for several years.

The word in question is the Greek word eis. It has three primary applications. The most common meaning is regarding a direction into something which includes concepts such as ”purpose” or “goal.” It can also mean “because of” (which it seems is the meaning you are implying… baptized “because of the forgiveness of your sins.” The third application is “in” which is the same as the Greek preposition en which could also be viewed as “in relation to.”

The reality is the overwhelming interpretation of eis is the first meaning regarding to the purpose or goal of something. In fact, it’s debatable if the other translations are even plausible in places where it can be translated “because of.” And, if the alternate translation were to be considered, it would be contextually clear.

Most importantly, the fact that in this context, baptism is paralleled with repentance make the meaning abundantly clear. In whatever way repentance is connected with forgiveness, so is baptism. So to argue that baptism occurs “on account of” forgiveness, one would also have to conclude that repentance also should be done on account of forgiveness already being granted. Not only does this seem to be implausible, but also the whole context of this verse is that the Jews are “cut to the heart” and and wanting to respond in such a way that they might be forgiven.

The Greek construction here is exactly the same as we find in Matthew 26:28 which reads,

The only reason someone would translate eis as “on account of” in this instance is if they have a theological reason for doing so. The common translation of the word, the grammatical construction nor the context provide any reason for this kind of translation.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not understand the distinction. If God’s quickening necessitates they will believe then I dont understand the sharp separation between the events. If God’s grace is irresistable, then the very act of quickening a person mandates their hearing and ultimately their faith. Thus, I dont think it is a misrepresentation on my part saying that God makes someone believe so that they might be saved if this is the case. The whole point of the quickening is to save the person. Without it the person cannot be saved (in your view) and with it the person most certainly is saved.

ANyway, I have enjoyed the discussion. I will start a new thread to discuss a topic perhaps that will be edifying to everyone on a less divisive topic.

Can I ask whether you believe his laws are written on all hearts

They are. Romans 6:17...But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. But only for believers.

Thanks for sharing

So just to clarify you don't think that any laws where wrote on unsaved hearts.

No. That's why they needed to be written on tablets. Unsaved people have no internal witness.

can you show that they have nothing in scripture that they have nothing inside