The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[rene]

"Now our church is so big and the baptism is so large we have people getting saved everyday by us so we can´t have a baptism everyday , so we have them every two or three month and sometimes the people miss them so if they have to wait till next year even to get baptized , their heart is willing to get baptized and that is what counts, to symbolize to others their choice for Christ in the open."

Why can't a person be baptized right then and there? They do so where I attend. It isn't like it is all that difficult. All you need is water enough to cover the person.

 

[freelight]

hasty conclusions.......

hasty conclusions.......

Originally posted by Francisco
freelight,

Is this all you have? It's no more convincing than your wierd interpretation that John 3:5 is speaking of natural birth, which I replied to and you have yet to answer. Your comments above appear to be no more scripturally based or supportable than your notion Jesus was describing natural birth to Nicodemus at John 3:5, even though Jesus tells him we are to be born again through baptism and then goes immediately to Judea with the apostles and sets up a baptism ministry.

rene is right on target, no matter how much you drone on with your nonsensical assertions which you supply no scriptural support for. Your attack on the ending of Mark useless, and your assertion that you find Matthew 28:19 'somewhat suspect' is laughable at best. Are you trying to say you are a better scholar than all those who have examined and accepted these scriptures as inspired for the last 2,000 years. That's extreme arrogance and the epitomy of stupidity. You need to stop reading scripture through the filter of your preconceived notion. You've been taught a man-made modern theology that has no basis in scripture or in apostolic tradition.

Keep up the good work rene!

God Bless,

Francisco

Hi cisco,..................my oh my. I think I may have lost contact with this thread for some time....so I may have not seen your 'reply' to my take on John 3:5....hence could not have responded. My take still stands as I see it - I've explained my view quite amply IMO. Your words of criticism and judgments are quite strong. I would be more careful. :angel:

I will present a summary to rene as to lay this issue to rest.

shalom,


paul

 

[freelight]

immersed in God..........

immersed in God..........

Originally posted by rene
Paul. I don't believe that I have seen any suggest that anything of what you said (from a quick glance) is wrong. What has been attempted to be pointed out is that all within the new covenant that Jesus est. are baptized. That there are none within the NT that are called believers that were not baptized. You will see many pointing out the scriptures that tell of the need of baptism by Jesus. Oh - BTW - the questions that some have about Mark 16 verses 9-20 are indeed quoted by Irenzeus and Hippolytus (2 or 3 century). Been awhile since I read up on it - but there have been recent discoveries to show that the verses are to be there.

What some seem to want to suggest is that baptism isn't important - something that one can or can't do. Considering all the verses that show otherwise - that approach is more than questionable. Even if the verses were NOT to be there - the fact that such is clearly seen as the standard held by all that were Christians - it is indeed at the least important. That it is spoken of within scripture makes it biblical, part of God's will.

But the fact is that similar is within Matt. 28. So - what point your attempting to make - not sure exactly what it is.

)============= Hi rene,..............I am sure we both have shared our views quite extensively about the subject of baptism, and here specifically water baptism as it relates to salvation in Christ. We can agree that baptism itself.....as a metaphysical and spiritual immersion in God/Christ is the essential at hand.....as far as ones actual experience of newness of Life is concerned. There are varying views and degrees of importance held by individuals/groups over the significance of water baptism. I uphold the essential of immersion in God/Christ as the baptism of Spirit and fire - Christ being the baptizer. The physical act of water baptism upon conversion is important as far as it compliments and compounds the reality of identification with Christ in actual experience. In this we see faith manifesting thru action.....in obedience to the call of conversion and faith. May God bless and empower us all.....to become even more immersed in the fullness of God and the resurrection-reality of Jesus Christ.

In Agape,


paul

 

[rene]

"I uphold the essential of immersion in God/Christ as the baptism of Spirit and fire - Christ being the baptizer. The physical act of water baptism upon conversion is important as far as it compliments and compounds the reality of identification with Christ in actual experience."

The question then is do you have any biblical support for such a belief that your following if you are going to call it Christian?

See, from within the bible, I can and have within this thread - as well as others - have shown why such is not supported by the bible as is seen within this verse:

Col 2:12 And when you were baptized, it was the same as being buried with Christ. Then you were raised to life because you had faith in the power of God, who raised Christ from death.

This verses shows that it baptism is much more than you suggest.

 

[c.moore]

hello Kevin

you said:Second of all, the reason I gave you the name of that thread was to show you that Freak did indeed ask God to curse me. Interestingly enough, you mentioned NOTHING about it. Did you not find it?

C.moore
yes, i did , but I would like to get both side of the story before I say anything.

Quote Kevin
If belief does not produce obedience, it will do that person no good. What good is belief if you don't do what Christ commanded for the remission of sins?

Quote c.moore
you will not be condemned by believing , meaning trusting jesus as your personal savior.

Also in believing you will want to be baptismed in the bllod of jesus so your sins can be washed away spiritually , because we don`t wear our sins on us that water washes it away like taking a bath.
the whole salvation message is with the heart which is done on the inside of you, and the believing , which is done on the in side of you, the washing of the blood which is done by faith and that is done also by believing on the in side of you, and letting Jesus come in side of you to live is an inside job.
the Spiritual birth is done on the inside of you so that the spirit can quicken you natural body to do the will of God , and obey the commands as well after all the inside jobs is completed to be saved in the Born again salvation new life.

BTW, the demons have a different believing as believers, because belöievers trust in Jesus , LOve Jesus, get married to Jesus, Accept Jesus death ,resurrection, and burial, this is all included in the believers believing, and if the demons had that same belief , they they would be saved , and I don`t think they are saved.

I do think demons can get water baptized , and go in a dry demon and come out a wet demon in any baptism water ritual, but a Jesus blood Baptism would destroy a demon.

So this is why I see also the water baptism is just a symbolic baptism of the real spiritual baptism thjat has power, and is annointed praise God.

you said Kevin
You just don't get what baptism is all about, do you? Romans 6 makes it quite clear that when we are baptized, we are baptized into Jesus's DEATH. How could the thief on the cross (even if he wasn't on the cross) be baptized into Christ's death when Christ hadn't died yet?


Quote c.moore
why did the thief say remember me in paradise,(remember me)??

Was this because Jesus hasn`t died yet?

Quote kevin


So if WE are to observe all things commanded by Christ, how is Christ keeping His own commandments when you admit that WE are to obey His commandments? Why would Christ tell US to observe His commandments if He was going to do them for us? Makes no sense.


Quote c.moore
yes , he became righteous for us or we are sons because of Christ , but to be rewarded for our commandment and obedience is something we should do , and want to do.

The same is after I marry my wife I should or would do all I can for my wife and be faithful to the end because I love her and because I am married to her.
My wife will not exspect me firstact and do the thing first like I am married them she will marry me, that would be backwards, or like I said before , when I join the army , they would not say first do all the commands and obey then you can join the army and even get a uniform if I finish my training, and all my duty and go to war and come back alive, then I can join , now that would be foolish, and in your analogy you believe this to be true in order to be saved.,. but this is not the gospel of Christ principles, and you say the grace and gospel I know makes no sense.

you asked:
would like you to explain how one is saved without having his/her sins remissed. That's what the purpose of baptism is (Acts 2:38), so how is one "saved" before having their sins forgiven


Quote c.moor
It is done by the blood of the lamb, by the accepting Jesus in you and to live through you trusting in HIm, and when you confess with your mouth, and heart you are instantly forgiven with faith of all you sins and at that time your name is written in the lambs book of life forever, unless you stop trusting and loving Jesus , and following your old ways and reject Jesus as your Lord freely.


God Bless

 

[rene]

"yes, i did , but I would like to get both side of the story before I say anything."

What is it that your looking for?

So, what your saying is that when you tried to tell me about my supposed attacks on Kevin - which really were not even my words - when you find out who really said them, you no longer have the same opinion?

Ok......

 

[rene]

"the whole salvation message is with the heart which is done on the inside of you, and the believing , which is done on the in side of you, the washing of the blood which is done by faith and that is done also by believing on the in side of you, and letting Jesus come in side of you to live is an inside job.
the Spiritual birth is done on the inside of you so that the spirit can quicken you natural body to do the will of God , and obey the commands as well after all the inside jobs is completed to be saved in the Born again salvation new life."

Luk 5:37 No one pours new wine into old wineskins. The new wine would swell and burst the old skins. Then the wine would be lost, and the skins would be ruined.
Luk 5:38 New wine must be put only into new wineskins.

Read the above verses. Jesus speaks about putting new within an old wineskin. You want to suggest that a new spiritual being is placed within one that has not been buried with Christ as we are told within scripture?

There is only one instance of that happening within the bible. But then the disciples were not reaching out to all the world either - just the Jewish believers. Seeing that indeed someone that was not following Jewish tradition could indeed have the spirit of God was the lesson they learned (or so indicates scripture). But even then they were baptized - ordered to be even by the apostle, right then and there. So even that approach is not a support of the lack of importance of baptism nor of it's real need.

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by rene
"yes, i did , but I would like to get both side of the story before I say anything."

What is it that your looking for?

So, what your saying is that when you tried to tell me about my supposed attacks on Kevin - which really were not even my words - when you find out who really said them, you no longer have the same opinion?

Ok......

I know freak personally , and I have seen Christ work through him in power, and authority, so I am wondering if Freak was rebuking demons out of Kevin or not.

It could be that Freak was talking to the religious demons , and not directly to that person, but something is happening here because there is so much feedback, so I think demons are getting mad.

As being real Christians the bible does talk about the fruits in some christians and they are Ga:5:22: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Ga:5:23: Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

maybe we need the spirit of temperance to show up now or maybe some longsuffering.


I remember a person here called HIS_Saving_grace called me all kind of namesand cursed me as well because I said Jesus died on the cross for us, and I believe the bible was completly Holy and true was dogmatic to him , and I just blessed him , and tried to left him up.
I found out latter he just a better heart becaus ehis girlfriend was dieing and he was a cripple.

God Bless

 

[rene]

yeah.... ok......

 

[c.moore]

hello rene

Ro:8:10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Ro:8:11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Ro:8:12: Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
Ro:8:13: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Ro:8:14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

What does these scripture mean to you???

Do you think as soon as we take a baptism we sinless perfect humans??

Ro:3:9: What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Ro:3:10: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Ro:3:11: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Ro:3:12: They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Ro:12:1: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Ro:12:2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

A renewing of our sinful mind from the inside of us is a process a day by day renewing.
Joh:3:6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh:3:7: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Ro:8:6: For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Ro:8:7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Ro:8:8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Ro:8:9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Ro:8:10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

This all has to do with Christ in you, and then the body is dead , this is spiritual, nothing to do with water.


God bless

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

you said:Second of all, the reason I gave you the name of that thread was to show you that Freak did indeed ask God to curse me. Interestingly enough, you mentioned NOTHING about it. Did you not find it?

C.moore
yes, i did , but I would like to get both side of the story before I say anything.

I'm glad to see you found it. Perhaps in the future you might actually believe things when I tell you, for I have no reason to lie.

I read your response to Rene about this, and man oh man, you've done a backflip. When you thought Rene said those words, you were quick to rebuke and tell her to "hold her mules" and say "My God have mercy!".

Now that you realize what I said was true, that those words were from your friend Freak, you had a very NOTICEABLE change in your response, tyring to justify Freaks words. How hypocritical can you get? Why the double standard? If you think someting is wrong, I don't care WHO says it, shouldn't you rebuke that person? Paul and Peter were friends, but Paul rebuked Peter to his face in public for playing the hypocrite, as you have done. :down: Stand up for your beliefs and rebuke those who are in need, whether they are your personal friend or not.

Quote Kevin
If belief does not produce obedience, it will do that person no good. What good is belief if you don't do what Christ commanded for the remission of sins?

Quote c.moore
you will not be condemned by believing , meaning trusting jesus as your personal savior.

That did not answer my question. I already know that we won't be condemned if we have faith in Christ. But there is faith that is dead in the eyes of God and faith that is alive in the eyes of God. So again, what good is belief if you don't do what Christ commanded for the remission of sins? Will that person's "belief" save him, even though he hasn't done what Christ commanded for the remission of sins?

Also in believing you will want to be baptismed in the bllod of jesus so your sins can be washed away spiritually

But what did Christ command that we do so that we can receive forgiveness by His blood (Hint: Acts 2:38)?

So this is why I see also the water baptism is just a symbolic baptism of the real spiritual baptism thjat has power, and is annointed praise God.

Baptism is a response to believing the gospel, being convicted of your sins. We are to be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins which is clearly spelled out in Acts 2:38.

You have to die with Christ in order to live with Christ (2 Tim. 2:11). The only way to do that is through baptism (Romans 6). If you do not die with Christ, crucifying your man of sin, you are still a slave of sin, and those who are slaves of sin will not inherit the kingdom of God.

you said Kevin
You just don't get what baptism is all about, do you? Romans 6 makes it quite clear that when we are baptized, we are baptized into Jesus's DEATH. How could the thief on the cross (even if he wasn't on the cross) be baptized into Christ's death when Christ hadn't died yet?


Quote c.moore
why did the thief say remember me in paradise,(remember me)??

Was this because Jesus hasn`t died yet?

The theif said remember me because he knew that Jesus was the Son of God and that He could save Him. As I said before, Christ had the power to forgive sins on earth, and that's exactly what happened... he forgave the thief.

But back at that time, the only way to have your sins forgiven was for Christ to forgive those who came to Him for forgiveness. Upon dying on the cross, Christ instituted a way that everybody could receieve the remission of sins - baptism in His name (Matt. 28:19-20). And this is EXACTLY what Peter did in the first gospel sermon... he told those people to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, just as Christ commanded in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-28).

So if WE are to observe all things commanded by Christ, how is Christ keeping His own commandments when you admit that WE are to obey His commandments? Why would Christ tell US to observe His commandments if He was going to do them for us? Makes no sense.


Quote c.moore
yes , he became righteous for us or we are sons because of Christ , but to be rewarded for our commandment and obedience is something we should do , and want to do.

Something we "should" do? Yes it is something we should do, because keeping His commandments is expected of us. And it's not like we do His commandments for extra rewards in heaven or anything like that, we do them because we love Christ and have TRUE faith in Him. True faith produces obedience.

Those who do not keep His commandments will NOT be saved, as the apostle John clearly says that those who claim to know Christ and do NOT keep His commandments are LIARS... and the truth is not in them. Lying people who don't have the truth won't make it to heaven... period:

1 John 2:3-4
3) And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments.
4) He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Also, look closely at verse 3. How do we know if we know Christ? How? **IF** we keep His commandments. That's how the Apsostle John says how we know whether or not we know Christ. Therefore, if all you have is faith, and you don't have obedience to His commandments, YOU DON'T KNOW CHRIST. Faith alone is not enough... which is spelled out throughout the Bible.

you asked:
would like you to explain how one is saved without having his/her sins remissed. That's what the purpose of baptism is (Acts 2:38), so how is one "saved" before having their sins forgiven


Quote c.moor
It is done by the blood of the lamb, by the accepting Jesus in you and to live through you trusting in HIm, and when you confess with your mouth, and heart you are instantly forgiven with faith of all you sins and at that time your name is written in the lambs book of life forever, unless you stop trusting and loving Jesus , and following your old ways and reject Jesus as your Lord freely.

So we have to confess with the mouth? That's a work, c.moore. I thought it was faith "only" that saves. What about repentance? Do we not have to repent? We can just believe and confess with our mouths and continue in a life of sin?

And also, none of the things you said in there were commanded for the forgiveness of sins. Those things you mentioned are indeed necessary, but don't you find it odd that baptism is what Christ singled out in the Great Commission? Why would that be? Because baptism is for the forgivness of sins.

And, looking at your answer, can you show me one instance where people were converted by merely confessing Him and believing? Just one?

I can show you plently of conversions that include baptism. The apostles knew to obey Christ commandment of baptism, and they knew what it was for.

 

[rene]

"What does these scripture mean to you???"

It shows me that you are picking and making choice of scripture. You want to base all your doctrine on this - just ignore the ones that don't agree with it. Such does not reflect wisdom. Such is turning away from points also within scripture because - - I guess cause they don't agree with the way that you want to think. I am not sure since you haven't stated. That's just the way that it is coming across.

"Do you think as soon as we take a baptism we sinless perfect humans??"

I never stated such. I quoted scripture. What you are in disagreement with is portions of scripture that do not agree with what you want to believe. You also are not making direct comments to the points from within scripture that I pointed out. I only state what the bible has to say about baptism. That is the verses that I quoted. So if you disagree, it is not with me, but what is within the bible itself.

For something to be a biblical point - it must come from scripture. The scripture can not be taken out of context to support something that clearly is disputed by another scripture. The bible is in harmony with itself and when such is done, it is nothing short of undermining the scriptures inspired of God. It is a denial of what is within scripture - akin to taking away from as is written of within Revelation 22:18-19. Such is a very serious matter with God as you will see if you read that portion of scripture.

 

[rene]

"I read your response to Rene about this, and man oh man, you've done a backflip. When you thought Rene said those words, you were quick to rebuke and tell her to "hold her mules" and say "My God have mercy!"."

You noticed that too. Strange how the stand changes. Pick and choose - pick and choose - - just like it seems wants to be done with scripture by some.

"Now that you realize what I said was true, that those words were from your friend Freak, you had a very NOTICEABLE change in your response, tyring to justify Freaks words. How hypocritical can you get? Why the double standard? If you think someting is wrong, I don't care WHO says it, shouldn't you rebuke that person? Paul and Peter were friends, but Paul rebuked Peter to his face in public for playing the hypocrite, as you have done. Stand up for your beliefs and rebuke those who are in need, whether they are your personal friend or not."

Double standard to say the least. Your exmple a good one based upon scripture.

Something that I have noticed while going thru this thread is that there are those that agree that the scriptures are there that are pointed out - but that they also must harmonize with the rest of scripture since God didn't have it any other way. Then there are those that pick a verse and make a whole doctrine out of it while ignoring other scriptures.

Me? I believe ALL of the bible, not just selected portions of it. That is the BIG difference between both points of view that I have noticed the most. There are those that agree with and see as inspired all the scripture - and those that pick out only selected verses that support what they want - even if it goes against other verses within the bible. The one is the way that I believe God would have it - the other is something that I see mentioned within the bible in a negative way.

 

[c.moore]

you said Kevi:Now that you realize what I said was true, that those words were from your friend Freak, you had a very NOTICEABLE change in your response, tyring to justify Freaks words. How hypocritical can you get? Why the double standard? If you think someting is wrong, I don't care WHO says it, shouldn't you rebuke that person? Paul and Peter were friends, but Paul rebuked Peter to his face in public for playing the hypocrite, as you have done. Stand up for your beliefs and rebuke those who are in need, whether they are your personal friend or not.


Quote c.moore
Not everyone has that power and annointing Freak has, and I mention this is why i reacted differently.

The same is Jesus also rebuke Peter, and i would think this was wrong from Jesus untill you check out the complet story get my point??


Quote kevin
Will that person's "belief" save him, even though he hasn't done what Christ commanded for the remission of sins?


quote c.moore
yes if he really believes, he is saved but he will not get a reward , and God will not say for sure well done my faithful son.
Also if the person doesn`t ask for the blood of Jesus to wash his sins away he is not believing and will be damned.

Ac:2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

the first step is repent , and how do we do that by Rom 10:9,10.

You said
Those who do not keep His commandments will NOT be saved, as the apostle John clearly says that those who claim to know Christ and do NOT keep His commandments are LIARS... and the truth is not in them. Lying people who don't have the truth won't make it to heaven... period:


Quote c.moore
Now we are getting some where.
Yes the truth people who are saved already for real would do, and if they are not saved for realy they will not do and the false saved person will be a liar because really the people who don`t do after they are saved haven`t believed really with their hearts, so they won´t obey, and maybe keep on sinning .


You said kevin
Because baptism is for the forgivness of sins

C.moore
Then , what is the Blood of Jesus , and what does the washing of the blood of Jesus do????


Do we need water to wash the blood away?:kookoo:
God Bless

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Quote c.moore
Not everyone has that power and annointing Freak has, and I mention this is why i reacted differently.

Um... yeah. Power and authority. Freak's supposed power and authority is so great that he can't answer direct question and ignores arguments. Many people have noticed this about him.

The fact is, you changed your tune real quick when you found out who actually said it, and now your trying to justify it by telling us about his... er... "power and authority". I see right through it, and I'm disappointed that you value friendship over doing what's right. :down:

Quote kevin
Will that person's "belief" save him, even though he hasn't done what Christ commanded for the remission of sins?


quote c.moore
yes if he really believes, he is saved but he will not get a reward , and God will not say for sure well done my faithful son.
Also if the person doesn`t ask for the blood of Jesus to wash his sins away he is not believing and will be damned.

Well there you have it folks... we can be saved without doing what Christ commanded so that our sins can be washed away. You don't get much more blind than that, C.Moore. When Christ tells you what you have to do to get your sins forgiven, and you don't do it, your sins aren't forgiven, and you won't go to heaven. Christ commanded baptism for the remission of sins, but you say it's not necessary, therefore you might as well say that it's not necessary to have your sins forgiven to make it to heaven. :doh:

Ac:2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

the first step is repent , and how do we do that by Rom 10:9,10.

Now why do you admit that according to Acts 2:38 is to repent and then you jump to Romans AND INGNORE WHAT PETER COMMMANDED NEXT: BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS?

You jump around from verse to verse picking and choosing what fits YOUR doctrine, while ignoring other's that don't agree with your doctrine. You completely BUTCHERED Acts 2:38 by starting with repentance, skipping the rest of that verse (how convenient of you), and then jump to Romans to try and prove your point.

Regarding Romans 10:9-10, there's more to it than meets the eye, as you'll see. How can one beleive in their hearts about Christ being risen from the dead unless they have been preached the gospel of Christ? They couldn't, and we have clear example that people who where preached the gospel were baptized for the remission of sins. Paul is certainly not trying to imply that baptism is not necessary for salvation, just because he didn't mention it in these verses, especially since he went into so much detail about baptism in chapter 6, which clearly shows that it's essential to be saved, for how can one be "saved" when they are alive to sin and dead to God? Belief and confession go hand in hand with baptism. Here, let's look at some examples that show people "believing in their heart and confessing with their mouth:

Acts 8:36-39 (NKJ)
36) Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
37) Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." and he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
38) So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
39) Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Here we have an example of what Paul is speaking about in action. Now, when the eunuch believed in his heart and confessed with his mouth, did Philip say "good job, you are saved!" Not at all, after this happened the eunuch was BAPTIZED for the remission of His sins, and then the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, NOT before he was baptized. Why do you suppose that is?

Let's look at another example, this time involving Paul Himself:

Acts 22:16 (NKJ)
16) And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Here is the conversion of Paul. It was quite obvious that he believed in his heart after Ananias whitnessed to him, for he obeyed the command of baptism to wash away his sins... also calling on the name of the Lord. Once again, we have a Biblical case of people believing and confessing, and once again, baptism is included.

Why didn't Ananias just tell Paul to believe and confess? Why did he tell him to wash away his sins through baptism if belief and confession is all that's needed?

And is this all Paul had sinners do when they were converted to Christ (belief and confession)? No. Look at Acts 19: 1-5. Upon Paul's preaching, they were baptized in the name of the Lord. Why do you suppose that is? Paul himself will tell you in Romans 6. Why didn't he just tell the people in Acts 19: 1-5 to believe and confess if that's all that's needed?

And then of course theirs Peter in Acts 2 when he converted sinners.... why didn't he tell them to just believe and confess if that's all it takes?

You said
Those who do not keep His commandments will NOT be saved, as the apostle John clearly says that those who claim to know Christ and do NOT keep His commandments are LIARS... and the truth is not in them. Lying people who don't have the truth won't make it to heaven... period:


Quote c.moore
Now we are getting some where.
Yes the truth people who are saved already for real would do, and if they are not saved for realy they will not do and the false saved person will be a liar because really the people who don`t do after they are saved haven`t believed really with their hearts, so they won´t obey, and maybe keep on sinning .

So do you admit that one who does not keep Christ's commandments won't make it to heaven? And again, in 1 John 2:3, how do we know if we know Christ?

You said kevin
Because baptism is for the forgivness of sins

C.moore
Then , what is the Blood of Jesus , and what does the washing of the blood of Jesus do????

The blood of Christ allows mankind forgivenss of their sins. But not everybody is automatically going to be forgiven just because He died on the cross. Only those who do what He Himself commanded us to do so that our sins can be forgiven will have their sins forgiven. He commaded baptism, and it's purpose is for the forgiveness of sins.

He died. Forgivness is available. He commanded baptism so that we can be washed by His blood. That's what baptism is for - the remission of sins. That's why He commanded it.

We have a picture perfect conversion of sinners in Acts 2. As much as you only want to use "repent" in Acts 2:38, that verse clearly has MORE to it - baptism... for what....? For what....? The remission of sins. That's how conversion takes place.

I'm still waiting for you to show me a conversion where people simply believed in their hearts and confessed with the mouth and nothing more. Where is it? And if we are saved by faith *ONLY*, then why do we have to confess with the mouth unto salvation - that's a WORK. I though faith only was good enough. And why do you use "repent" out of Acts 2:38? I thought faith *ONLY* was good enough.

 

[Kevin]

Rene,

You noticed that too. Strange how the stand changes. Pick and choose - pick and choose - - just like it seems wants to be done with scripture by some.

Amen to that. They have to pick and choose. They really don't have a choice without admitting that their doctrine does not take in the whole counsel of God.

Double standard to say the least. Your exmple a good one based upon scripture.

Thank you. God bless you, sister! :up:

 

[rene]

" The same is Jesus also rebuke Peter, and i would think this was wrong from Jesus untill you check out the complet story get my point??"

Your equating Freak with JESUS??

Mat 7:17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that produces bad fruit will be chopped down and burned.
Mat 7:20 You can tell who the false prophets are by their deeds.
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
Mat 7:22 On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, "We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles."
Mat 7:23 But I will tell them, "I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!"
Mat 7:24 Anyone who hears and obeys these teachings of mine is like a wise person who built a house on solid rock.

 

[freelight]

water-logged.........

water-logged.........

Hi All,

It appears that C. moore is emphasizing the blood of Christ as that which 'washes' our sins away - makes us clean.

Kevin & rene is emphasizing the act of water baptism as the means of washing ones sins away (for remission) - more or less.

Well.........I think its been said before that water cannot wash away sins! Water was used ceremonially for 'cleansing' purposes....but this was always symbolic. The pure cleansing of the soul/conscience comes about thru divine inspiration, faith and spiritual regeneration - these are in cooperation with renewal of the mind/repentance......calling upon the name of the Lord. Transformation comes via renewal of the mind.......in sync with divine Will.

Kevin wrote:

The theif said remember me because he knew that Jesus was the Son of God and that He could save Him. As I said before, Christ had the power to forgive sins on earth, and that's exactly what happened... he forgave the thief.

But back at that time, the only way to have your sins forgiven was for Christ to forgive those who came to Him for forgiveness. Upon dying on the cross, Christ instituted a way that everybody could receieve the remission of sins - baptism in His name (Matt. 28:19-20). And this is EXACTLY what Peter did in the first gospel sermon... he told those people to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, just as Christ commanded in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-28).



)============== Kev, you are ever hilighting Acts 2:38 - much is a language issue - one is baptized 'because of' the remission of sins...which can only come about by faith in Gods love and provision thru Christ - one must come in faith believing and ask for forgiveness and receive the provision provided by God. You may have to look again at the word 'for' in Acts2:38 - I dont think this command by 'Peter' (notice not Jesus)....is implying that the physical act of dunking in water is what remits(washes/cleansing) your sin - the act is one of faith and only conjunctional with the conversion experience....as protocol in most cases. Your quote of Matt. 28: 19 - supposedly of Jesus ....says nothing about being baptized 'for'(because of) the remission of sins. This is an implication imposed.

Kevin wrote:

Well there you have it folks... we can be saved without doing what Christ commanded so our sins can be washed away. You don't much more blind than that, C.Moore. When Christ tells you what you have to do to get your sins forgiven, and you don't do it, your sins aren't forgiven, and you won't go to heaven. Christ commanded baptism for the remission of sins, but you say it's not necessary, therefore you might as well say that it's not necessary to have your sins forgiven to make it to heaven.



)==============We have to re-evaluate your claim that Christ commanded baptism 'for the remission of sins'. The so called 'great commission' mentions baptism. I mentioned that this verse may be suspect as an interpolation supporting the Trinity doctrine - anyhow....Christ doesnt mention this being done 'for the remission of sins' as you deem such so important.

Gospel of Mark - using the long conclusion(version) vs. 9-20 (not in the earliest manuscript).....Christ does not say that one who is not baptized will be damned.....but only those who do not believe. One cannot interject that Jesus here is saying that baptism is essential for salvation...because elswhere he gives qualifications for salvation in the gospel accounts which do not include the necessity of baptism. What Christ does emphasize and teach is faith....and this is the primary essential.

Gospel of Luke - no where here does Jesus teach/instruct baptism 'for the remission of sins' - in fact in his final address he says - "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" - 24:47 No mention of baptism here.

Gospel of John - I already shared how one verse says Jesus baptized...but is later invalidated by a later verse - see 3:22...then...4:2. Still, this gospel bears no evidence that Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize 'for the remission of sins'.

Acts - it should be noted as well that 8:37 is not found in some of the earlier texts (Phillips dialogue with the Ethiopian man). In this book....various apostles teach and instruct baptism...following after the tradtion of Johns baptism - but we should take note....that the the baptism that Christ baptizes us with is a spiritual baptism (with Spirit and fire) - it is NOT a water baptism.
One must understand the baptism unto repentance and the baptism of Spirit and fire - these work synergistically....but do not necessarily cancel out one another - repentance is cooperational with spiritual baptism - and Christ comes as our baptizer with the Holy Spirit. John paves the way with the baptism of repentance.....preparing us for the baptism of Christ - one with holy spirit and fire. In this light......we see that the water baptism of John coincided with the act of repentance and preparation for the coming spiritual baptism of the Lord Christ. This is something of natural and divine order. Therefore we see the act of water baptism being carried over into the disciples of Jesus as was also practiced by the disciples of John - both were essentially the same form of water baptism....although Christs disciples administered such with a greater revelation and insight....thru revelation of the Christ - which included baptism in the Holy Spirit.
The rite of water baptism therefore correlates with many things, the primary ones being repentance, cleansing, renewal....and in the higher Christ-revelation....identification with Christs death, burial and resurrection as taught by Paul.

Pauls teaching - It should be noted that Paul had a spiritual understanding and application of 'baptism' - it was not only water baptism that Paul referred to in his letters.

To the Romans - (6:1- 6) Paul speaks of being baptized(immersed) 'into' Christ Jesus - the 'buried' with Him in baptism is noted as a spiritual baptism - this is not speaking of a water baptism. Water baptism may symbolize and represent this spiritual baptism....but the water baptism in and of itself does not 'immerse' one into Christ...apart from actual genuine repentance and understanding of the true baptism into Christ/God....which is spiritual.

Paul himself said he was not sent to baptize......BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL. (1 Cor. 1: 14-17). Paul considered the preaching of the cross (the gospel/his gospel)........more imortant than baptizing.
Paul further elaborates his concept of baptism by saying "all our fathers were 'baptized into Moses' in the cloud, all passed thru the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:1-4).

The primary concept of spiritual baptism is comsummated well in this writing of Paul - "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - all have been made to drink into one Spirit'. (1 Cor. 12: 13)
In this letter to the Corinthians......the concept of baptism shared here is more of a sense of spiritual immersion - a consecrating act of 'pouring out on' and/or 'putting into'.

To the Galations - Paul continues his concept of baptism - "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have 'put on' Christ." (3:27).

To the Ephesians - Paul speaks of one baptism - this being one being baptized into Christ by one Spirit. This baptism is one being immersed into Christ....and the Spirit of Christ coming in and upon the believer.....grafting him into the body of Christ....as a living member. (4: 5)

To the Colossians - Paul speaks again of being "buried with Him in baptism....in which you also were raised with him". This baptism into Christ is a kind of burial(identified with Him in His death/burial)...then arising with Him thru resurrection in newness of Life. This baptism is an immersion into Christ...bring carried in Him thru death, burial and resurrection. It is essentially spiritual - this immersion into and communion with Christ in spirit.

Peter teaches that baptism( is not the mere physical act of the removal of the flesh{circumcision}, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) thru the resurrection of Christ. Likewise it is logical to assume that the mere act of water baptism does not avail.....but one truly of a good conscience who has died and been buried in Christ(baptism)....also shall be resurrected in that same Spirit of Christ.....and walk in newness of Life.

It is interesting to note that Paul and Peter likened the physical act of circumcision with baptism - a greater spiritual teaching lies within concerning the circumcision made without hands (Col. 2:11).

Summary - John came baptizing with water preaching the baptism of repentance......he professed that Christ would come to baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. No where does Christ say or teach that the physical act of baptism is 'for the remission of sins'.(this is spear-headed from a particular interpretation of Acts 2:38). This understanding or correlation of 'washing' in 'water' is carried on from Johns ministry and since the concept itself is a part of mans renewal of mind and spirit in God.....it still prevails.
The over emphasis of Acts 2:38 and it being interpreted to mean that the baptism of water itself is actually the catalyst that grants remission/forgiveness of sins.....is part of the problem of those who push zealously for water baptism. When it is understood that this verse implies that one is baptized 'because of' the remission of sins (symbolic of being buried{dying)}and then rising to new life{resurrection} )...then less stress will be placed on water baptism being the 'only' way for one to have his sins forgiven. Ones sins are forgiven when confessed to God and forgiveness is requested......and furthermore when that one repents and walks in the Spirit....in loving obedience to divine Will.
Then such a one is in harmony with the divine Will and Christ. One is also a candidate of forgiveness when he forgives others.

So the view taken here is one of interpretation and stress. I propose as shared that Pauls concept of baptism has spiritual dimensions and is not always just about a physical act of being dunked in water. His concept of baptism in Christ takes on greater and deeper dimensions than water baptism. Water baptism may include and represent/symbolize ones baptism into Christ and being identified with Him thru the processes of death, burial and resurrection - this is what the act of water baptism represents and maybe more. The primary value, emphasis, importance of baptism is ones spiritual immersion, communion, inner-mergence, regeneration in God - the physical act of baptism is only an express token of the spiritual reality/process it represents.




paul

 

[rene]

"Kevin & rene is emphasizing the act of water baptism as the means of washing ones sins away (for remission) - more or less."

No. My comments are to the biblical point that it takes ALL of it, not the pick and choose version.

" Well.........I think its been said before that water cannot wash away sins! Water was used ceremonially for 'cleansing' purposes....but this was always symbolic. The pure cleansing of the soul/conscience comes about thru divine inspiration, faith and spiritual regeneration - these are in cooperation with renewal of the mind/repentance......calling upon the name of the Lord. Transformation comes via renewal of the mind.......in sync with divine Will."

Yes, it has indeed been said - while ignoring the verses that say just that. Some follow all of the bible - some don't. The pick and choose side wants to ignore anything that calls into question their stand. Of course, the verses are still within the bible.

"You may have to look again at the word 'for' in Acts2:38 - I dont think this command by 'Peter' (notice not Jesus)....is implying that the physical act of dunking in water is what remits(washes/cleansing) your sin - the act is one of faith and only conjunctional with the conversion experience....as protocol in most cases."

From Strong's on the word within the verse "for"

eis
ice
A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literallyor figuratively.

Thayer:

eis
Thayer Definition:
1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among
Part of Speech: preposition

A preposition describes a relationship between other words in a sentence. In itself, a word like "in" or "after" is rather meaningless and hard to define in mere words. For instance, when you do try to define a preposition like "in" or "between" or "on," you invariably use your hands to show how something is situated in relationship to something else. Prepositions are nearly always combined with other words in structures called prepositional phrases. Prepositional phrases can be made up of a million different words, but they tend to be built the same: a preposition followed by a determiner and an adjective or two, followed by a pronoun or noun (called the object of the preposition). This whole phrase, in turn, takes on a modifying role, acting as an adjective or an adverb, locating something in time and space, modifying a noun, or telling when or where or under what conditions something happened.

Notice that it tells when or where or under what conditions something happens.

Your further comments of "Your quote of Matt. 28: 19 - supposedly of Jesus ....says nothing about being baptized 'for'(because of) the remission of sins. This is an implication imposed." Such makes the point clearly that you seem to be one of those that pick and choose scripture - but that you want to go even a step further and suggest that the words that one can clearly see from reading within scripture that they are spoken by Jesus is wrong. You discount those very words. That right there shows me that not only do you not have respect for the bible - you seem to want to cut and edit out to suit your belief vs following the words as written. That is a dangerous mistake on your part Read Revelation 22:18-19 to find out how dangerous such a tact is.

"We have to re-evaluate your claim that Christ commanded baptism 'for the remission of sins'. The so called 'great commission' mentions baptism. I mentioned that this verse may be suspect as an interpolation supporting the Trinity doctrine - anyhow....Christ doesnt mention this being done 'for the remission of sins' as you deem such so important."

Matthew 28 is in question? Oh yes - by those that pick and choose the verses within the bible that they want to believe. Seems that for those that don't like what it is said - they just ignore it as if that makes it disappear. Such is not the case in reality. There are many of us that don't approach scripture in such a way.

Your comments about Romans - if you went down just a few more verses - you will find that the verses refute your claim.

Rom 6:3 Don't you know that all who share in Christ Jesus by being baptized also share in his death?
Rom 6:4 When we were baptized, we died and were buried with Christ. We were baptized, so that we would live a new life, as Christ was raised to life by the glory of God the Father.
Rom 6:5 If we shared in Jesus' death by being baptized, we will be raised to life with him.
Rom 6:6 We know that the persons we used to be were nailed to the cross with Jesus. This was done, so that our sinful bodies would no longer be the slaves of sin.
Rom 6:7 We know that sin doesn't have power over dead people.
Rom 6:8 As surely as we died with Christ, we believe we will also live with him.

As to your comments about the last chapter of Mark - matters not. For the same thing is stated in Matthew. You also going to ignore those scriptures as well?

Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

That baptism is part of it - a given. WIth all the baptisms that they did - you think that all of a sudden that it was dropped? and not mentioned? Those that it's written to understood what "remission of sins" entailed. There isn't a person within the bible that is left not baptized. The eunuch seemed to grasp it as well as every other believer within the bible. There is not one example within the bible of a person doing as you suggest. Baptism was always part of it.

John - I guess you don't know how Jesus gave authority to others to do His Father's will. That He didn't personally do it doesn't lessen the truth that it is of importance. Just as many of the parables point out where those that are given authority do so by that authority in that persons name - seems to have escaped you.

Your comments about Acts and the Ethiopian man I question because I would have thought that while I was in bible college such information most def. would have been a topic of discussion - it wasn't. Have called several preachers I know and they too have never heard of this (BTW - I called people from several different denominations and they say that such a claim is false). I guess you didn't know that it is within the dead sea scrolls, huh?

So - with so many of your comments being more than questionable, giving serious consideration to your pick and choose method of approach to the gospel is what is really questionable.

 

[Kevin]

Freelight,

It appears that C. moore is emphasizing the blood of Christ as that which 'washes' our sins away - makes us clean.

If you paid close attention to my posts, you would see that I agree that the blood of Christ is what actually forgives our sins. But unless one does what is commanded for the remission of those sins, baptism, the blood of Christ will do that person no good.

Kevin & rene is emphasizing the act of water baptism as the means of washing ones sins away (for remission) - more or less.

Yup, just as it was done in Acts 2:38.

Well.........I think its been said before that water cannot wash away sins!

There's nothing magical about the water. It's obeying what God commanded us to do for the remission of sins is why we are washed clean of our sins. This of course is only possible because Christ shed his blood.

The pure cleansing of the soul/conscience comes about thru divine inspiration, faith and spiritual regeneration - these are in cooperation with renewal of the mind/repentance......calling upon the name of the Lord.

Yeah... and Paul was told to be batpized as he called on the name of the Lord.

Transformation comes via renewal of the mind

Yes it does. That's where it all begins. But is a person transformed, knowing Christ without obedience to His commandmetns? No, becaue 1John 2:3-4 clearly says that we know if we know Christ depending on wether or not we obey His commandments.

Kev, you are ever hilighting Acts 2:38 - much is a language issue - one is baptized 'because of' the remission of sins

Once again we have the tired casual 'eis' argument that holds no water. Funny how I've never seen any translation translate 'eis' to "because of". That's nothing more than a desperate attempt to discredit the many scholars who came before and translated it "for", which is the correct rendering. I can show you over 50 translations that do NOT render it "because of".

Looking at Romans 6, we see that is through baptism that the old man of sin is crucified, and that baptism is how we die with Christ. Now, looking at Rom. 6:7, it says that those who have died have been freed from sin. That is a conditional statement. Who has been freed from sin? Those who have died. How do you die with Christ? BAPTISM. There's no doubt that Romans 6 speaks of a baptism that frees you from sin, therefore baptism is FOR the remission of sins, just as correctly rendered in Acts 2:38.

I dont think this command by 'Peter' (notice not Jesus)....is implying that the physical act of dunking in water is what remits(washes/cleansing) your sin

So WHAT if Peter said it and not Jesus. Peter commanded it because CHRIST commanded it to be done in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Why do you think Peter commanded it?

And yes, Peter is indeed implying that baptism is for the remission of sins, because that's exactly what he said!

Your quote of Matt. 28: 19 - supposedly of Jesus ....says nothing about being baptized 'for'(because of) the remission of sins. This is an implication imposed.

Supposedly of Jesus?! You need some serious help. You are the first person I've EVER ran into that implied that Jesus was "supposedly" speaking in Matt. 28:19-20. Oh man..... that's just sad.

Secondly, I can back up why Christ commanded baptism, that it was indeed for the remission of sins. Christ said to preach the gospel and baptism them, did he not? Yes.

Now what did Peter, who Christ said He was going to build His church on, do? He preached the gospel and he commanded them to be baptized FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Do you think it's mere coincidence that Peter did EXACTLY as the Lord commanded? It's no coincidence, and Acts 2:38 clearly shows that baptism was FOR, not because of, the remission of sins.

We have to re-evaluate your claim that Christ commanded baptism 'for the remission of sins'.

See above and tell me that it's just a coincidence.

The so called 'great commission' mentions baptism. I mentioned that this verse may be suspect as an interpolation supporting the Trinity doctrine

:doh: :doh: As Francisco said, this claim at best is, laughable. Actually, no, it's sad. Anything that is in the Bible that goes against your doctrine is "suspect". :down:

anyhow....Christ doesnt mention this being done 'for the remission of sins' as you deem such so important.

Again, see above.

Gospel of Mark - using the long conclusion(version) vs. 9-20 (not in the earliest manuscript).....

Just because verses 9-20 do not appear in some of the ancient manuscripts is not reason to throw it away. For indeed, verses 9-20 ARE found in the Alexandrian and in a lot of the uncial ancient manuscripts. Also, early church Fathers such as Irenaeus and Tatian, who lived in the 2nd Century, cited from these verses, as well as Hyppolytus and Dyonisius of Alexandria (3rd Century).

Then there's the fact that Mark 16:16 is in complete harmony with Matthew's account of the Great Commission. I find your evidence, lacking.

Christ does not say that one who is not baptized will be damned.....but only those who do not believe.

Well of course. Why would Christ need to include baptism when He is speaking of the damned? If one doesn't believe, then they certainly aren't going to get baptized into something that don't believe! If they don't believe, they are already lost, for belief is where it all begins. You don't get to second base if you cant even get to first base.

One cannot interject that Jesus here is saying that baptism is essential for salvation...

Actually, one can interject that very thing, because Jesus said that those who believe AND are baptized will be saved. You CANNOT seperate two things that are joined by the word "and". If I tell you go to the store and by "milk and cookies", and you only come back with milk... did you fulfill what I asked for? No. Likewise, if you only believe, you did not fullfil what Christ included in the requirements for salvation: baptism!

because elswhere he gives qualifications for salvation in the gospel accounts which do not include the necessity of baptism.

Weak argument. There are a lot of verses that deal with salvation. Do we pick and choose the ones we like and omit the ones that don't agree with our doctrine, or do we take the WHOLE counsel of God into consideration? I can show you a verse where Christ say that unless you repent, you will perish (Luke 13:3). There's nothing mentioned about belief in there... so is that no longer necessary? This is what happens when you pick and choose.

What Christ does emphasize and teach is faith....and this is the primary essential.

I agree. But faith "alone" is not what Christ taught.

Gospel of Luke - no where here does Jesus teach/instruct baptism 'for the remission of sins' - in fact in his final address he says - "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" - 24:47 No mention of baptism here.

You're not doing your position any favors. This verse SUPPORTS my argument. Tell me, how was remission of sins "in His name" done, beginning in Jerusalem? It happened on the day of Pentecost, in Jerusalem. Peter preached Christ, and they received remission of sins in His name how? Look:

Acts 2:38 (MKJV)
38) Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter preached Jesus, beginning at Jerusalem, and had those people sins forgiven "in the name of Jesus Christ" through baptism. The gospel of Acts 2 is the fulfillment of Luke 24:47.

Gospel of John - I already shared how one verse says Jesus baptized...but is later invalidated by a later verse - see 3:22...then...4:2. Still, this gospel bears no evidence that Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize 'for the remission of sins'.

Are you speaking of the baptism of John? What are you getting at here?

Acts - it should be noted as well that 8:37 is not found in some of the earlier texts (Phillips dialogue with the Ethiopian man).

But it is found in others, and is in complete harmony with the Bible. Acts 8:37 goes hand in hand with what Paul was speaking about in Romans 10:9-10 (if you believe with your hear and confess with your mouth you will be saved....). That's EXACLTLY what's going on here. And because of that belief and confession, he was baptized in water for the remission of sins. Believing and confessing go hand in hand with baptism.

In this book....various apostles teach and instruct baptism...following after the tradtion of Johns baptism - but we should take note....that the the baptism that Christ baptizes us with is a spiritual baptism (with Spirit and fire) - it is NOT a water baptism.

The apostles did NOT baptize with John's baptism, and those that still baptized with John's baptism (like Apollos) after the death on the cross, were tuaght more correctly.

No, the apostles baptized people in the name of the Lord, which is NOT the same as John's baptism. We know from Acts 10:47-48 that baptism in the name of the Lord uses WATER, and we know that John's baptism is different from baptism in the name of the Lord from Acts 19:5 where those people of John's baptism were rebaptized in the name of the Lord.

Also, man cannot baptize with Spirit and fire. Yet, Christ certainly did command people to be baptized in His name Matt. 28: 19-20. That's exactly what the apostles did, starting in Jerusalem as correctly stated in the Luke passage you pointed out. Why would the apostles go out and baptize people with John's baptism when Christ had already died? Makes no sense.

Pauls teaching - It should be noted that Paul had a spiritual understanding and application of 'baptism' - it was not only water baptism that Paul referred to in his letters.

To the Romans - (6:1- 6) Paul speaks of being baptized(immersed) 'into' Christ Jesus - the 'buried' with Him in baptism is noted as a spiritual baptism - this is not speaking of a water baptism.

Wrong. Wouldn't it make sense that Paul would write about the same baptism that he practiced? The fact is, upon Paul's preaching, people were baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5), which is done with water (Acts 10:47-48).

Paul himself said he was not sent to baptize......BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL. (1 Cor. 1: 14-17). Paul considered the preaching of the cross (the gospel/his gospel)........more imortant than baptizing.

Paul was merely saying that preaching was his main purpose. If you look at the context of those passages, you would see why he said what he did. They were having divisions of WHO baptized them. That's why he said "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name (verses 14-15).

That's the reason he said what he did... not because baptism didn't play a role in salvation.

The primary concept of spiritual baptism is comsummated well in this writing of Paul - "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - all have been made to drink into one Spirit'. (1 Cor. 12: 13)

Well yes, what do you think led those people in Acts 2 to be water baptized for the remission of sins? The Holy Spirit working through Peter. By One Spirit, they were baptized into Christ. If it weren't for the working of the Holy Spirit, they wouldn't have been convicted of their sins and consequently been water baptized for the remission of sins.

To the Galations - Paul continues his concept of baptism - "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have 'put on' Christ." (3:27).

Yes, and again, what baptism did Paul practice? Baptism in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5), which uses water (Acts 10:47-48).

To the Ephesians - Paul speaks of one baptism - this being one being baptized into Christ by one Spirit. This baptism is one being immersed into Christ....and the Spirit of Christ coming in and upon the believer.....grafting him into the body of Christ....as a living member. (4: 5)

See above.

To the Colossians - Paul speaks again of being "buried with Him in baptism....in which you also were raised with him". This baptism into Christ is a kind of burial(identified with Him in His death/burial)...then arising with Him thru resurrection in newness of Life. This baptism is an immersion into Christ...bring carried in Him thru death, burial and resurrection. It is essentially spiritual - this immersion into and communion with Christ in spirit.

Same thing. The baptism he speaks of is the one he practiced, and even though it involves water, it most certainly has a spiritual purpose.

Peter teaches that baptism( is not the mere physical act of the removal of the flesh{circumcision}, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) thru the resurrection of Christ. Likewise it is logical to assume that the mere act of water baptism does not avail.....but one truly of a good conscience who has died and been buried in Christ(baptism)....also shall be resurrected in that same Spirit of Christ.....and walk in newness of Life.

So at what point did Peter stop water baptizing in the name of the Lord, as in Acts 2:38? Would he not be referring the baptism that NOW SAVES YOU? He mentioned that it's not the removal of flesh to show that baptism's purpose is not for a physical cleansing. This does not mean that the baptism Peter is speaking here did not involve water, for he compared it to how Noah was saved through WATER.

The act of being baptized is indeed the result of a good conscience, knowing that one has obeyed what Christ commanded for salvation - baptism in His name. Look at the Etheopian eunuch in Acts 8: 37-39. He went on his way rejoicing AFTER (not before) he was baptized. The reason for this is simple, he knew that he had obeyed the commandments of God, which includes being baptized for the remission of sins - he certainly had a good conscience, knowing he had obeyed God.