For the joy that was set before Him

That's a question that manifestly fails to understand what baptism connotes, which is not "the washing of dirt from the body" per Peter, but the pledge of a clean conscience before God. (1 Pet 3:21). It is apparent that in this day, "baptism" has come to signify something different from what it did in the early church, even something manifestly contrary to what it did before (i.e. JUST the washing of dirt from the body). Being immersed in a pool is not what baptism meant to Peter.

OK. I give up.
 
How he DEFINED it? Peter was an apostle, not a lexicographer.
Peter's definition was no different from anyone else's. Paul: Rom 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death."

So how, in the early church, did one participate in the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins except by baptism?

May be you should rather be asking: is the modern church, in so far as it removes the need for baptism, heretical?
 
Peter's definition was no different from anyone else's. Paul: Rom 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death."

So how, in the early church, did one participate in the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins except by baptism?

May be you should rather be asking: is the modern church, in so far as it removes the need for baptism, heretical?

Romans 10: 9-10:

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

NOT:

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and are baptized you will be saved.
 
Romans 10: 9-10:

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

NOT:

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and are baptized you will be saved.
He was speaking to the church of the baptized anyway, so he wasn't going to tell them to be baptized. Why would he do that? He doesn't mention repentance etc, because he was telling the saved how to ensure their salvation. (Make sure you check the audience first.)
 
He was speaking to the church of the baptized anyway, so he wasn't going to tell them to be baptized. Why would he do that? He doesn't mention repentance etc, because he was telling the saved how to ensure their salvation. (Make sure you check the audience first.)

It's the Bible. The audience is all mankind. We are NOT told that baptism is essential for forgiveness.
 
It's the Bible. The audience is all mankind. We are NOT told that baptism is essential for forgiveness.
It may be the bible, but Paul is speaking to the baptized. He is most assuredly not speaking to the unsaved. He is providing words of reassurance, not evangelizing the unsaved (which does happen in modern churches rather a lot for some reason). NT churches were a rather different story.
 
No. He was speaking to me before I was baptized.
The specific address is found in Rom v.7,8:

"To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world."

These people are clearly baptized.
 
Last edited:
The specific address is found in Rom v.7,8:

"To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world."

These people are clearly baptized.

So the epistle to Romans is not meant for you and me?
 
Let me guess. YOU interpret it "correctly" in terms of what is meant for us today and what was meant for the Romans 2,000 years ago.
I don't claim to know anything special (1Co 8:2). I don't think it's right to find artificial contradictions. You have always to try for a "best fit" interpretation. Such is common to interpreting the law of any legal system. If you don't do that, you risk undermining the whole - making it look stupid. I see your position on Romans 10: 9-10 vis-a-vis baptism as introducing contradictions into the bible that are quite unnecessary; and as detracting from its integrity.
 
I don't claim to know anything special (1Co 8:2). I don't think it's right to find artificial contradictions. You have always to try for a "best fit" interpretation. Such is common to interpreting the law of any legal system. If you don't do that, you risk undermining the whole - making it look stupid. I see your position on Romans 10: 9-10 vis-a-vis baptism as introducing contradictions into the bible that are quite unnecessary; and as detracting from its integrity.

No. Romans 10: 9-10 introduces no contradiction whatsoever. If baptism were required for forgiveness, Paul would have added baptism to belief. When the church was just born in Acts 2:38 Peter had an erroneous belief about baptism just as he did even later about circumcision. That is your "best fit" interpretation.
 
No. Romans 10: 9-10 introduces no contradiction whatsoever. If baptism were required for forgiveness, Paul would have added baptism to belief. When the church was just born in Acts 2:38 Peter had an erroneous belief about baptism just as he did even later about circumcision. That is your "best fit" interpretation.
You err. Paul is talking about future salvation "σωθήσῃ" (future indicative passive). This speaks of being raised up at the last day to the believer and also how to live the saved life (not necessarily the past salvation associated with justfication).

"It is with your mouth that you profess your faith" - profession coming after belief. You have been saved (Eph 2:8) and you will be saved (Phl 1:28). For the believer both are true at the same time.

But even if an unbeliever were to read these words, he would immediately recall Acts 16:30-33, and grasp that baptism is inherent to faith: the two are not severable unless, as the thief on the cross, there is some external ground excusing baptism.

Thus I find your attempt to dispense with baptism, just because of Romans 10:9-10, offensive. What is the motive, if I may inquire? Do you really suppose it was Paul's intention to say "Baptism is not required for the Church"?
 
You err. Paul is talking about future salvation "σωθήσῃ" (future indicative passive). This speaks of being raised up at the last day to the believer and also how to live the saved life (not necessarily the past salvation associated with justfication).

"It is with your mouth that you profess your faith" - profession coming after belief. You have been saved (Eph 2:8) and you will be saved (Phl 1:28). For the believer both are true at the same time.

But even if an unbeliever were to read these words, he would immediately recall Acts 16:30-33, and grasp that baptism is inherent to faith: the two are not severable unless, as the thief on the cross, there is some external ground excusing baptism.

Thus I find your attempt to dispense with baptism, just because of Romans 10:9-10, offensive. What is the motive, if I may inquire? Do you really suppose it was Paul's intention to say "Baptism is not required for the Church"?
 
You err. Paul is talking about future salvation "σωθήσῃ" (future indicative passive). This speaks of being raised up at the last day to the believer and also how to live the saved life (not necessarily the past salvation associated with justfication).

"It is with your mouth that you profess your faith" - profession coming after belief. You have been saved (Eph 2:8) and you will be saved (Phl 1:28). For the believer both are true at the same time.

No. YOU err in thinking I find anything to disagree with in all that irrelevant stuff you just typed.

Thus I find your attempt to dispense with baptism, just because of Romans 10:9-10, offensive.

You err yet again, O Easily Offended One. I don't dispense with baptism. I consider it important. But to think that God would dispense with one's ability to enter in to the eternal Kingdom, but be relegated to outer darkness because they didn't participate in an external ritual is an offense to the character of God.
 
But to think that God would dispense with one's ability to enter in to the eternal Kingdom, but be relegated to outer darkness because they didn't participate in an external ritual is an offense to the character of God.
It's not an external ritual, but a public declaration of repentance and so inherent to faith. If you don't repent, you don't get forgiven: simple. If you refuse to be baptized, then your testimony is that you refuse to repent.
 
It's not an external ritual, but a public declaration of repentance and so inherent to faith. If you don't repent, you don't get forgiven: simple. If you refuse to be baptized, then your testimony is that you refuse to repent.

Suppose one doesn't refuse to be baptized but dies before getting around to it? Do they miss out on eternal joy?
 
Back
Top