Christian Forums

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 17:37:00
I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Mark 1:4.
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Those who heeded the message of John were saved on the same basis as any in the Old Testament were saved.

I have read that immersing one's self in water was part of becoming clean in Judaism, and that John took this immersing of one's self out of the pools of water that folks like the Pharisees had constructed and put them in the reach of the common man by immersing in natural bodies of water.

I have also read that one may have been immersed with John's baptism more than once.

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:23:24

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 17:37:00
I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Mark 1:4.
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Those who heeded the message of John were saved on the same basis as any in the Old Testament were saved.

Soterion,  can you answer my question, please?  Did John's baptism "for the remission of sins" wash their sins away?

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:39:24

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:23:24

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 17:37:00
I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Mark 1:4.
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Those who heeded the message of John were saved on the same basis as any in the Old Testament were saved.

Soterion,  can you answer my question, please?  Did John's baptism "for the remission of sins" wash their sins away?

To answer your question, I see no particular reason why not.  If it was "for remission of sins" then, then I see no reason why it wasn't the same kind of "for remission of sins" that Peter preached in Acts 2.

Of course, if their sins were washed away, it was on the basis of what Christ would do on the cross that their sins were remitted (as the same basis of why anyone from Adam to the end of time can have their sins forgiven), just like with those after the cross.

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:39:24

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:23:24

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 17:37:00
I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Mark 1:4.
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Those who heeded the message of John were saved on the same basis as any in the Old Testament were saved.

Soterion,  can you answer my question, please?  Did John's baptism "for the remission of sins" wash their sins away?

SammySmile,

This is getting a little off topic, but do you believe penitent sinners under the Law of Moses had their sins washed away before the cross of Christ?  If so, then take John's baptism that way also.  If not, then take John's baptism that way.  Either way, those who obeyed were forgiven by God.

I answered the way I did to allow for any differences of viewpoint concerning forgiveness before the cross.

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:54:22

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:39:24

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:23:24

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 17:37:00
I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Mark 1:4.
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Those who heeded the message of John were saved on the same basis as any in the Old Testament were saved.

Soterion,  can you answer my question, please?  Did John's baptism "for the remission of sins" wash their sins away?

SammySmile,

This is getting a little off topic, but do you believe penitent sinners under the Law of Moses had their sins washed away before the cross of Christ?  If so, then take John's baptism that way also.  If not, then take John's baptism that way.  Either way, those who obeyed were forgiven by God.

I answered the way I did to allow for any differences of viewpoint concerning forgiveness before the cross.

Soterion, all I asked for was a yes or no response.  I know what I believe, and I'll be happy to tell you, but I was asking about your understanding of John's water baptism, which I still do not I'm afraid.

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 22:21:14
In the previous thread, James Rondon wrote: 

Here is how I understand it, from the Greek, from the context, and from the passages underview: Noah and his family were saved in the ark. The persecuted believer is saved / rescued in / from his or her suffering (baptism / immersion / overwhelming) for the sake of Christ, which is the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (one can kill the body, but because of the resurrection of Jesus, a glorified body awaits the persecuted believer). As far as "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" is concerned, Peter clarified this to demonstrate that his use of the word "baptism" did not mean "water baptism".

Very interesting and very viable interpretation. 

SammySmile,

Why did Peter mention the cleansing of the flesh in the passage?

You need to think about this before you answer.  Consider first century authorship and historical context.  Does it make any sense at all that the apostle has to correct the thinking of the readers at that time concerning whether immersion involved water or not? 

The fact that He says that the flood waters is the figure of baptism, and the fact that he mentions that baptism does wash away the filth of the flesh, has to lead us to the conclusion that the immersion he speaks of involves water.

I rather see Peter making sure the readers are not looking at the water in immersion as having any power- the power is in the resurrection of Christ and in Him alone.

Quote from: DCR on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:49:10

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:39:24

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:23:24

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 17:37:00
I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Mark 1:4.
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Those who heeded the message of John were saved on the same basis as any in the Old Testament were saved.

Soterion,  can you answer my question, please?  Did John's baptism "for the remission of sins" wash their sins away?

To answer your question, I see no particular reason why not.  If it was "for remission of sins" then, then I see no reason why it wasn't the same kind of "for remission of sins" that Peter preached in Acts 2.

Of course, if their sins were washed away, it was on the basis of what Christ would do on the cross that their sins were remitted (as the same basis of why anyone from Adam to the end of time can have their sins forgiven), just like with those after the cross.

Ah, so if their sins were washed away, it was on the basis of what Christ would do on the cross that their sins were remitted.  

So, DCR, you are saying that the water baptism of John did absolutely wash away all their sins.  They were dead to sin and alive to God through the water baptism by John.  Okay.  And this was done even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet.

Interesting.

I have to go to work.  I'll pop back in tonight.

SammySmile,

Those who submitted to the will of God concerning the immersion of John were forgiven just as any under the Old Covenant were forgiven by God.  They had faith in God to receive salvation.  As DCR said, their forgiveness is based on the work of Christ on the cross.

If you cannot accept that answer, then no answer will suffice for you.

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:04:43

Quote from: DCR on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:49:10

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:39:24

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:23:24

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 17:37:00
I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Mark 1:4.
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Those who heeded the message of John were saved on the same basis as any in the Old Testament were saved.

Soterion,  can you answer my question, please?  Did John's baptism "for the remission of sins" wash their sins away?

To answer your question, I see no particular reason why not.  If it was "for remission of sins" then, then I see no reason why it wasn't the same kind of "for remission of sins" that Peter preached in Acts 2.

Of course, if their sins were washed away, it was on the basis of what Christ would do on the cross that their sins were remitted (as the same basis of why anyone from Adam to the end of time can have their sins forgiven), just like with those after the cross.

Ah, so if their sins were washed away, it was on the basis of what Christ would do on the cross that their sins were remitted.  

So, DCR, you are saying that the water baptism of John did absolutely wash away all their sins.  They were dead to sin and alive to God through the water baptism by John.  Okay.  And this was done even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet.

Interesting.

I have to go to work.  I'll pop back in tonight.

Your response here is exactly why I answered you the way I did.  It seems that you were not looking for any honest answer, but rather that you were looking for some other way to show your disagreement on this topic.

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:13:35

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:04:43

Quote from: DCR on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:49:10

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:39:24

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:23:24

Quote from: SammySmile on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 17:37:00
I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Mark 1:4.
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Those who heeded the message of John were saved on the same basis as any in the Old Testament were saved.

Soterion,  can you answer my question, please?  Did John's baptism "for the remission of sins" wash their sins away?

To answer your question, I see no particular reason why not.  If it was "for remission of sins" then, then I see no reason why it wasn't the same kind of "for remission of sins" that Peter preached in Acts 2.

Of course, if their sins were washed away, it was on the basis of what Christ would do on the cross that their sins were remitted (as the same basis of why anyone from Adam to the end of time can have their sins forgiven), just like with those after the cross.

Ah, so if their sins were washed away, it was on the basis of what Christ would do on the cross that their sins were remitted.  

So, DCR, you are saying that the water baptism of John did absolutely wash away all their sins.  They were dead to sin and alive to God through the water baptism by John.  Okay.  And this was done even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet.

Interesting.

I have to go to work.  I'll pop back in tonight.

Your response here is exactly why I answered you the way I did.  It seems that you were not looking for any honest answer, but rather that you were looking for some other way to show your disagreement on this topic.

I thought a yes or no answer would be honest.  Are you unable to answer yes or no?  I can answer yes or no and be honest.  Why can't you?

sammySmile,

My answer was a yes or no answer.  Are you not able to see that in the posts?

You are being too arrogant in demanding that people answer you only one way.  If I want to answer by showing why I believe the way I do, then that is my prerogative. 

My answer is not that vague.  Does it look like I am saying no if I say they were forgiven on the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus?  Can you not take the things I have posted in the past and draw a conclusion? 

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:04:43So, DCR, you are saying that the water baptism of John did absolutely wash away all their sins.  They were dead to sin and alive to God through the water baptism by John.  Okay.  And this was done even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet.

Interesting.

You appear to have problems with that concept.  So be it.  But, need I point out that the same could be said about Abraham or anyone else who was ever justified before the cross even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet?  I believe that the cross of Christ was retroactive to those justified before Calvary.  If God chose to do something through John's baptism at that time, that's His prerogative.  I would rather not overanalyze it but would prefer to just accept it at face value and let God sort out the details.

What would have John's baptism meant to the Jews of that time?  That should be the first question.

Then figure out how it corresponds to the baptism of a believer in Christ.

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:23:56
sammySmile,

My answer was a yes or no answer.  Are you not able to see that in the posts?

You are being too arrogant in demanding that people answer you only one way.  If I want to answer by showing why I believe the way I do, then that is my prerogative. 

My answer is not that vague.  Does it look like I am saying no if I say they were forgiven on the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus?  Can you not take the things I have posted in the past and draw a conclusion? 

Soterion, I find your answer a little puzzling because in another thread when I proffered that those under the Old Covenant were saved on the basis of looking to Jesus you said that that was impossible and that I misunderstood the Old Covenant.

And I'll take it from your above post that your answer is yes, they were cleansed of their sins by the baptism of John in the same way you believe you were cleansed of your sin by the baptism of your pastor, etc. 

Quote from: DCR on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 09:15:13

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:04:43So, DCR, you are saying that the water baptism of John did absolutely wash away all their sins.  They were dead to sin and alive to God through the water baptism by John.  Okay.  And this was done even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet.

Interesting.

You appear to have problems with that concept.  So be it.  But, need I point out that the same could be said about Abraham or anyone else who was ever justified before the cross even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet?  I believe that the cross of Christ was retroactive to those justified before Calvary.  If God chose to do something through John's baptism at that time, that's His prerogative.  I would rather not overanalyze it but would prefer to just accept it at face value and let God sort out the details.

Oh, DCR, I believe in justification by faith prior to Christ's death.  I just don't believe as you do that John's baptism "for remission of sins" was the same as the baptism in Acts "for remission of sins."  It's obvious they are certainly not the same, as Paul commanded a rebaptism for those under the New Covenant. (Acts 19)

You see, I know that John's baptism was symbolic of cleansing.  It wasn't an actual cleansing.  That was the reason that John diminished the importance of his baptism in light of Christ when he said, I baptize with water, but one is coming who will baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.  If John's baptism was literally the conduit to remit or cleanse sins and declare one righteous, John would have placed more emphasis on it in light of Jesus.  Instead John said to Jesus I need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?  Thus, it's obvious that John's baptism did not remove sins.  In fact, John the Baptist, who was one of the greatest men of God under the Old Covenant, recognized his need of Jesus' cleansing.

The truth is that there is no actual remittance of sins prior to Jesus' death.  John's baptism was looking ahead to Jesus' death to remit sins, just as Christian baptism looks behind to Jesus' death to remit sins.  That is the nature of all baptism in the Bible.  They are all symbolic and not literal conduits to reach Jesus' grace.

Thus, to use the phrase for the remission of sins to say that water baptism is the instrument of that remission is identical to saying that communion is actually the flesh and blood of Jesus.  Remember Jesus' words: This is My body, This is My blood.  But we understand the symbolism of it because we look to the real and actual event of the cross above the symbolism involved.  Water baptism does not remove sins.  Faith in the sacrifice of Jesus removes sins.  To say otherwise is to miss the forest for the trees.

Quote from: Gary on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 07:27:38
I have read that immersing one's self in water was part of becoming clean in Judaism, and that John took this immersing of one's self out of the pools of water that folks like the Pharisees had constructed and put them in the reach of the common man by immersing in natural bodies of water.

I have also read that one may have been immersed with John's baptism more than once.

Read this link and you will know. Ritual cleansing was not for taking a bath, they would be washed before the ritual cleansing. There were, at best guess from archaeology, 800 pools around the temple area.

http://www.haydid.org/ronimmer.htm

FTL

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 11:37:21

Quote from: DCR on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 09:15:13

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:04:43So, DCR, you are saying that the water baptism of John did absolutely wash away all their sins.  They were dead to sin and alive to God through the water baptism by John.  Okay.  And this was done even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet.

Interesting.

You appear to have problems with that concept.  So be it.  But, need I point out that the same could be said about Abraham or anyone else who was ever justified before the cross even though Christ hadn't shed His blood yet?  I believe that the cross of Christ was retroactive to those justified before Calvary.  If God chose to do something through John's baptism at that time, that's His prerogative.  I would rather not overanalyze it but would prefer to just accept it at face value and let God sort out the details.

Oh, DCR, I believe in justification by faith prior to Christ's death.  I just don't believe as you do that John's baptism "for remission of sins" was the same as the baptism in Acts "for remission of sins."  It's obvious they are certainly not the same, as Paul commanded a rebaptism for those under the New Covenant. (Acts 19)

You see, I know that John's baptism was symbolic of cleansing.  It wasn't an actual cleansing.  That was the reason that John diminished the importance of his baptism in light of Christ when he said, I baptize with water, but one is coming who will baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.  If John's baptism was literally the conduit to remit or cleanse sins and declare one righteous, John would have placed more emphasis on it in light of Jesus.  Instead John said to Jesus I need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?  Thus, it's obvious that John's baptism did not remove sins.  In fact, John the Baptist, who was one of the greatest men of God under the Old Covenant, recognized his need of Jesus' cleansing.

The truth is that there is no actual remittance of sins prior to Jesus' death.  John's baptism was looking ahead to Jesus' death to remit sins, just as Christian baptism looks behind to Jesus' death to remit sins.  That is the nature of all baptism in the Bible.  They are all symbolic and not literal conduits to reach Jesus' grace.

Thus, to use the phrase for the remission of sins to say that water baptism is the instrument of that remission is identical to saying that communion is actually the flesh and blood of Jesus.  Remember Jesus' words: This is My body, This is My blood.  But we understand the symbolism of it because we look to the real and actual event of the cross above the symbolism involved.  Water baptism does not remove sins.  Faith in the sacrifice of Jesus removes sins.  To say otherwise is to miss the forest for the trees.

If an errant, weak brother (or sister for you sensitive types) uses the biblical phrase "This is your body and blood" during a communion prayer without mentioning the words "to us represents..." or "as a symbol" or whatever... has this person prayed false theology?

Quote from: Gary on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 18:02:14

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:00:14
Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.  

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Or how about what was written:

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Thanks, Gary.

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 11:09:03

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:23:56
sammySmile,

My answer was a yes or no answer.  Are you not able to see that in the posts?

You are being too arrogant in demanding that people answer you only one way.  If I want to answer by showing why I believe the way I do, then that is my prerogative. 

My answer is not that vague.  Does it look like I am saying no if I say they were forgiven on the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus?  Can you not take the things I have posted in the past and draw a conclusion? 

Soterion, I find your answer a little puzzling because in another thread when I proffered that those under the Old Covenant were saved on the basis of looking to Jesus you said that that was impossible and that I misunderstood the Old Covenant.

And I'll take it from your above post that your answer is yes, they were cleansed of their sins by the baptism of John in the same way you believe you were cleansed of your sin by the baptism of your pastor, etc. 

When talking in general about those under the Old Covenant, I am thinking during all that time from Moses onward.  Any forgiveness for them was by faith in God based on what He had given them.  Ultimately, it was the work of Jesus on the cross and His resurrection that saved them.  The people who heard John's message were in a different situation than most of those who lived prior in that they were being told the Messiah was practically in their midst and would now be made manifest. 

As for me saying that those people were cleansed by the baptism of John in the same way I or anybody else today received cleansing when baptized by some pastor, etc., that is not what I said.  I compared the salvation by faith of those who received John's baptism with the rest of those under the Old Covenant who had faith in God.  Regardless of the view a person may have as to when a person was actually saved, if before the cross or not until the cross, the salvation of those prior to John the Baptist and those who received the baptism of John are equivalent.

Quote from: James Rondon on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 17:17:40

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:00:14
Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.  

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Considering the fact that each heard the message in their own tongue, and that Peter exhorted them with "many other words", they surely had a much better understanding of the matter than we do today... Not to mention, they knew what ritual washing was before Peter ever started speaking.

Granted.  The context gives some hint to as what the content of the "many other words" were.  Furthermore, the following chapters, in fact, nothing else really in Acts (unless I have forgotten something), especially in view of Paul's conversion and his teachings on grace and works et al and Luke's travels with him, it seems the content of the "many other words" were unlikely to parallel much of our discussions on baptism being a work or not.  (Have I done a lousy job of trying to make a point!?!)

Something to consider: How many today, from either "side" of the issue, would follow up a sermon such as Peter's with "many other words" about what baptism is, what it does, etc., etc....?

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 17:07:22

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 11:09:03

Quote from: soterion on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 08:23:56
sammySmile,

My answer was a yes or no answer.  Are you not able to see that in the posts?

You are being too arrogant in demanding that people answer you only one way.  If I want to answer by showing why I believe the way I do, then that is my prerogative. 

My answer is not that vague.  Does it look like I am saying no if I say they were forgiven on the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus?  Can you not take the things I have posted in the past and draw a conclusion? 

Soterion, I find your answer a little puzzling because in another thread when I proffered that those under the Old Covenant were saved on the basis of looking to Jesus you said that that was impossible and that I misunderstood the Old Covenant.

And I'll take it from your above post that your answer is yes, they were cleansed of their sins by the baptism of John in the same way you believe you were cleansed of your sin by the baptism of your pastor, etc. 

When talking in general about those under the Old Covenant, I am thinking during all that time from Moses onward.  Any forgiveness for them was by faith in God based on what He had given them.  Ultimately, it was the work of Jesus on the cross and His resurrection that saved them.  The people who heard John's message were in a different situation than most of those who lived prior in that they were being told the Messiah was practically in their midst and would now be made manifest. 

As for me saying that those people were cleansed by the baptism of John in the same way I or anybody else today received cleansing when baptized by some pastor, etc., that is not what I said.  I compared the salvation by faith of those who received John's baptism with the rest of those under the Old Covenant who had faith in God.  Regardless of the view a person may have as to when a person was actually saved, if before the cross or not until the cross, the salvation of those prior to John the Baptist and those who received the baptism of John are equivalent.

Soterion,

I guess I don't need to say that I disagree with your characterizations, both regarding the previous thread, as well as your take on salvation. 

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 17:39:36
Something to consider: How many today, from either "side" of the issue, would follow up a sermon such as Peter's with "many other words" about what baptism is, what it does, etc., etc....?

James,

Care to elaborate what you mean exactly??

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 17:39:36
Something to consider: How many today, from either "side" of the issue, would follow up a sermon such as Peter's with "many other words" about what baptism is, what it does, etc., etc....?

Good... point. 

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 17:47:34

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 17:39:36
Something to consider: How many today, from either "side" of the issue, would follow up a sermon such as Peter's with "many other words" about what baptism is, what it does, etc., etc....?

James,

Care to elaborate what you mean exactly??

Certainly. After preaching the same message that Peter preached in Acts 2:14-36, at the mention of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as a response to the message for those who had repented and put their faith in Him, many today would go on and on about what baptism is, and more particularly, what it isn't in reaction to baptismal regeneration.

At the same time, many others would go on and on about what it is, and what it does, from their theological perspective, in reaction to those who believe that one is saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from water baptism.

Although Peter may have mentioned a little more about baptism in his "many other words", it seems very unlikely that he spent very much time on baptism, especially the theological aspects of it, as opposed to exhorting the people about the necessity of bearing fruits of worthy of their repentance, and faith in Christ.

QuoteAlthough Peter may have mentioned a little more about baptism in his "many other words", it seems very unlikely that he spent very much time on baptism, especially the theological aspects of it,

The reason being it was not argued over just what it was about but was clear so no need to discuss futher.

Quote from: James Rondon on Fri Mar 16, 2007 - 14:19:31

Quote from: SammySmile on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 17:47:34

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Mar 15, 2007 - 17:39:36
Something to consider: How many today, from either "side" of the issue, would follow up a sermon such as Peter's with "many other words" about what baptism is, what it does, etc., etc....?

James,

Care to elaborate what you mean exactly??

Certainly. After preaching the same message that Peter preached in Acts 2:14-36, at the mention of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as a response to the message for those who had repented and put their faith in Him, many today would go on and on about what baptism is, and more particularly, what it isn't in reaction to baptismal regeneration.

At the same time, many others would go on and on about what it is, and what it does, from their theological perspective, in reaction to those who believe that one is saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from water baptism.

Although Peter may have mentioned a little more about baptism in his "many other words", it seems very unlikely that he spent very much time on baptism, especially the theological aspects of it, as opposed to exhorting the people about the necessity of bearing fruits of worthy of their repentance, and faith in Christ.

James,

Well, I think you'd agree with me that to the COC, water baptism is core to their salvation theology.  It's hard to get past it when discussing salvation.  I've discussed water baptism in the past year with COC pastors more than I've discussed the subject in my entire life put together.  It seems when they're discussing matters of who's saved and who's not, water baptism is the central theme.  There's just no way around. 

Generally, I like to consider a brother or sister in Christ anyone who's professed to know Jesus as Lord and demonstrates a momentum and desire toward him.  I have problems with baptism regeneration theolgy, especially with those who are firm believers in it as a work necessary to reach Christ, but I recognize that many have imperfect understandings of salvation.  (My understanding is perfect of course.) 

Quote from: bvaug on Fri Mar 16, 2007 - 16:02:25

QuoteAlthough Peter may have mentioned a little more about baptism in his "many other words", it seems very unlikely that he spent very much time on baptism, especially the theological aspects of it,

The reason being it was not argued over just what it was about but was clear so no need to discuss futher.

Exactly.  I'm not sure some of the things we argue about now on the subject of baptism... even occurred to the first century believer.

Quote from: bvaug on Fri Mar 16, 2007 - 16:02:25

QuoteAlthough Peter may have mentioned a little more about baptism in his "many other words", it seems very unlikely that he spent very much time on baptism, especially the theological aspects of it,

The reason being it was not argued over just what it was about but was clear so no need to discuss futher.

The question, then is: What was it that was "clear" to them?...

That the response to belief was to be immersed.

Are you sure it was by immersion?

[By the way... When many say "immersion", they really mean "submersion". However, one can be immersed without being submerged... (Regardless, "washed" is actually a better general translation of baptizo and it's derivatives than "immersion"...)]

Quote from: James Rondon on Fri Mar 16, 2007 - 17:22:22

Quote from: bvaug on Fri Mar 16, 2007 - 16:02:25

QuoteAlthough Peter may have mentioned a little more about baptism in his "many other words", it seems very unlikely that he spent very much time on baptism, especially the theological aspects of it,

The reason being it was not argued over just what it was about but was clear so no need to discuss futher.

The question, then is: What was it that was "clear" to them?...

Impossible to know for certain.  But, at the risking of sounding Cathodox, there are only two ways to decide that:

1) What tradition teaches.

or

2) Private interpretation.

(with a third possibility, according to some, of "direct inspiration/revelation"... as in "God opened my eyes to the truth about this.")

Quote from: DCR on Fri Mar 16, 2007 - 18:08:23

Quote from: James Rondon on Fri Mar 16, 2007 - 17:22:22

Quote from: bvaug on Fri Mar 16, 2007 - 16:02:25

QuoteAlthough Peter may have mentioned a little more about baptism in his "many other words", it seems very unlikely that he spent very much time on baptism, especially the theological aspects of it,

The reason being it was not argued over just what it was about but was clear so no need to discuss futher.

The question, then is: What was it that was "clear" to them?...

Impossible to know for certain.  But, at the risking of sounding Cathodox, there are only two ways to decide that:

1) What tradition teaches.

or

2) Private interpretation.

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.catholic.com/library/baptism_immersion_only.asp