Baptism purpose Sign of the covenant.

[sincerly]

I will stop using --.

You say the purpose of water baptism is to symbolize or to represent. You and those in your circle "use those words" - often. Paul did not use those words. Romans 6 did not use those words. Nobody used those words. My point was that these 'words' would have shown up if people had believed that, they didn't. There is a consistent pattern. Every baptist I ask, every time, changes the nature of the question and neglects to address the missing vocabulary that would be in the Bible had that belief actually existed.

e r. m., It is the scriptures which say. Baptism, as such, didn't occur in the O.T. to my knowldge, but there was plenty of "symbolism" to "represent" the Truths which GOD conveyed to the people for their understanding of HIS Messages.
Are you claiming otherwise?
Nor did Jesus nor the Prophets have to begin their teachings with "those words" which you seem to insist that they use.(Or would have "used").
The "missing vocabulary" is a figment of your imagination, because the context of the Scriptures, and the written word by other Biblical inspired writers of the Scriptures concerning the same subject attest to the same principle being given.

Baptists use a double standard. They don't accept water baptism for forgiveness/salvation because those words are not in the Bible as often as belief/faith and salvation (but at least it's there), But it's OK to infer that people get baptized to symbolize/represent... that is written in the Bible "0" times. Deny what is written and adopt 'what is not'.

e r. m., Are you claiming that a principles of GOD has to be repeated "x" times by GOD to be valid???
Aren't you using "baptism" as a "symbol"/to "represent" forgiveness and salvation?
Isn't that what Paul is doing in Rom.6:1-11 by Jesus by whom forgiveness and salvation is obtained??
Isn't it by "Believeing/Faith" in that Sacrifice/death of Jesus Christ that one adds the "In the name of" to the dunking in the "water".
The "water" may remove some of the dirt/filth from the external body, but it cannot have any power to remove the guilty charge against the life of the person.
Neither will the confessing and Repenting----therefore, we are back to the "In the name of"---the only name by which a person obtains "forgiveness and salvation".
Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Jesus not only used symbolism to refer to HIMSELF, but said, that "serpent on the pole" would indicate that all who looked with "Faith"/Belief" in HIS Mission to "seek and save the lost" would not be disappointed.

 

[e.r.m.]

e r. m., It is the scriptures which say. Baptism, as such, didn't occur in the O.T. to my knowldge, but there was plenty of "symbolism" to "represent" the Truths which GOD conveyed to the people for their understanding of HIS Messages.
Are you claiming otherwise?
Nor did Jesus nor the Prophets have to begin their teachings with "those words" which you seem to insist that they use.(Or would have "used").
The "missing vocabulary" is a figment of your imagination, because the context of the Scriptures, and the written word by other Biblical inspired writers of the Scriptures concerning the same subject attest to the same principle being given.

e r. m., Are you claiming that a principles of GOD has to be repeated "x" times by GOD to be valid???
Aren't you using "baptism" as a "symbol"/to "represent" forgiveness and salvation?
Isn't that what Paul is doing in Rom.6:1-11 by Jesus by whom forgiveness and salvation is obtained??
Isn't it by "Believeing/Faith" in that Sacrifice/death of Jesus Christ that one adds the "In the name of" to the dunking in the "water".
The "water" may remove some of the dirt/filth from the external body, but it cannot have any power to remove the guilty charge against the life of the person.
Neither will the confessing and Repenting----therefore, we are back to the "In the name of"---the only name by which a person obtains "forgiveness and salvation".
Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Jesus not only used symbolism to refer to HIMSELF, but said, that "serpent on the pole" would indicate that all who looked with "Faith"/Belief" in HIS Mission to "seek and save the lost" would not be disappointed.

e r. m., It is the scriptures which say. Baptism, as such, didn't occur in the O.T. to my knowldge, but there was plenty of "symbolism" to "represent" the Truths which GOD conveyed to the people for their understanding of HIS Messages.
Are you claiming otherwise?
I don't see what connection you're making between old testament symbolism and NT baptism.

Nor did Jesus nor the Prophets have to begin their teachings with "those words" which you seem to insist that they use.(Or would have "used").
The "missing vocabulary" is a figment of your imagination, because the context of the Scriptures, and the written word by other Biblical inspired writers of the Scriptures concerning the same subject attest to the same principle being given.
If the NT church had infant baptism, there would have been ceremonies or some other Biblical mention of it. The Bible is void of mention of anything infant baptism like. The Catholics use the context argument. "Cornelius's household had babies argument." The context you speak of does not exist. People have been proven to see patterns where none exist, especially when they want to see a pattern. There are valid Biblical patterns, but those patterns are written. Do you want to agree to infant baptism by the same loose association you use?

e r. m., Are you claiming that a principles of GOD has to be repeated "x" times by GOD to be valid???
In order to be a principle they've gotta be mentioned at least 1 time. Or at least the principle that isn't mentioned cannot be cancelled by the principle that is mentioned when they contradict. E.g. - Acts 2:38 vs. Baptism as a public profession of faith. I see a consistent pattern among Baptist type believers that they believe they have spoken on God's behalf to fill in the gaps where the Bible is silent. This is about the fifth time I've seen this. Catholics also believe they have this authority.

Aren't you using "baptism" as a "symbol"/to "represent" forgiveness and salvation?
Since the Bible doesn't, then no.]
Isn't that what Paul is doing in Rom.6:1-11 by Jesus by whom forgiveness and salvation is obtained??This is what O mean. Baptists can't look at Romans 6 without using one of those two words. Paul would have done the same had he it that way. If not in Romans 6, somewhere. He had the capacity as demonstrated in Romans 4 and he had plenty of opportunity throughout the NT. There's no evidence of any kind that he saw it that way. If he did, then he also baptized babies in the Philippian jailer's house.

Isn't it by "Believeing/Faith" in that Sacrifice/death of Jesus Christ that one adds the "In the name of" to the dunking in the "water".
Yes.

The "water" may remove some of the dirt/filth from the external body, but it cannot have any power to remove the guilty charge against the life of the person.
1 Peter 3:21 says baptism saves & gives the answer of a good conscience toward God. It says baptism does both.

Neither will the confessing and Repenting----therefore, we are back to the "In the name of"---the only name by which a person obtains "forgiveness and salvation".
That's why they're baptized 'in Jesus's name.
Repentance Luke 13:5, Acts 2:38
Confession Romans 10:9-10

Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Being baptized in Elijah's name won't save anyone.

Jesus not only used symbolism to refer to HIMSELF, but said, that "serpent on the pole" would indicate that all who looked with "Faith"/Belief" in HIS Mission to "seek and save the lost" would not be disappointed.
Belief of course is expected. Jesus was explicit though, Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[e.r.m.]

e r. m., your using(--) as the start of your answer is confusing to others I'm sure, because I use those (--) to break my comments.

I Agree that Salvation DOES NOT come without the forgiveness of SINS--which is in the Atoning Blood of Jesus who Peter had been explaining to that Audience. Also, By which, Paul was attesting in Rom.6:1-11. ALL water baptism to be meaningful was to be done as Jesus had been "baptised"--immersion.

I Agree that Salvation DOES NOT come without the forgiveness of SINS--which is in the Atoning Blood of Jesus who Peter had been explaining to that Audience. Also, By which, Paul was attesting in Rom.6:1-11. ALL water baptism to be meaningful was to be done as Jesus had been "baptised"--immersion.
Not a disagreement, but an observation. In general, when the Scripture refer to baptism, it is referring to immersion, unless it says otherwise. E.g. - Matthew 3:15.

 

[sincerly]

I Agree that Salvation DOES NOT come without the forgiveness of SINS--which is in the Atoning Blood of Jesus who Peter had been explaining to that Audience. Also, By which, Paul was attesting in Rom.6:1-11. ALL water baptism to be meaningful was to be done as Jesus had been "baptised"--immersion.
Not a disagreement, but an observation. In general, when the Scripture refer to baptism, it is referring to immersion, unless it says otherwise. E.g. - Matthew 3:15.

e r. m., What makes you think that Matt.3:15 wasn't by immersion? Or that John the baptist was using multiple methods of baptism? The scriptures do not attest to another means.

 

[e.r.m.]

e r. m., What makes you think that Matt.3:15 wasn't by immersion? Or that John the baptist was using multiple methods of baptism? The scriptures do not attest to another means.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong verse, this is the one I meant
Mark 1:8 "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
He mentioned baptism with the Holy Spirit. Unless says otherwise like this, then it's usually water baptism.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r. m., What makes you think that Matt.3:15 wasn't by immersion? Or that John the baptist was using multiple methods of baptism? The scriptures do not attest to another means.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong verse, this is the one I meant
Mark 1:8 "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
He mentioned baptism with the Holy Spirit. Unless says otherwise like this, then it's usually water baptism.

Matt.3:11 is the same. What you are saying is the "Context" determines the Meaning. I agree with that along with what other Scripture verses say about the same topic/subject.
My questions above had to do with "water baptism" should one get the idea that I didn't believe in baptism with the Holy Spirit.(That is a problem with removing portions of material from the original.)

 

[e.r.m.]

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r. m., What makes you think that Matt.3:15 wasn't by immersion? Or that John the baptist was using multiple methods of baptism? The scriptures do not attest to another means.

Matt.3:11 is the same. What you are saying is the "Context" determines the Meaning. I agree with that along with what other Scripture verses say about the same topic/subject.
My questions above had to do with "water baptism" should one get the idea that I didn't believe in baptism with the Holy Spirit.(That is a problem with removing portions of material from the original.)

No doubt that you believe in baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Difference with our contexts, like I had said before, water baptism is written in the Bible, symbolic terminology is not.

 

[sincerly]

e r. m., It is the scriptures which say. Baptism, as such, didn't occur in the O.T. to my knowldge, but there was plenty of "symbolism" to "represent" the Truths which GOD conveyed to the people for their understanding of HIS Messages.
Are you claiming otherwise?
I don't see what connection you're making between old testament symbolism and NT baptism.

e r. m., Heb.9 refers to the OT symbolism of the facts of animal sacrifices representing the Fact that it was Jesus Christ who was the "very image", by which, those "shadows" the animals (which had been sacrificed through the years)--represented-- to Atone for the Sinner's Disobedience---by which "forgiveness" was obtained.
Jesus Christ "fulfilled" that "ordained" plan which was in place from "before the foundation of the world".
John the baptist was the for-runner to lay the foundation for the transistion of the "fulness of time" when Jesus Christ "the Lamb slain(promised) from before the foundation of the world" would fulfill that mission. Repent and be baptized.

Jesus came(in the fulness of time) Baptizing with water and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus and the other Apostles wrapped up the purpose of baptism in Paul's showing that the confessing, Repentant, with full remorse, Sinner would be Baptised acknowledging(in Faith) that the death of Jesus Christ freed one from the Sin debt of death and that the sinner was now alive in the new birth(Spiritually). (Rom.6:1-11) "IN the name of Jesus Christ".

Nor did Jesus nor the Prophets have to begin their teachings with "those words" which you seem to insist that they use.(Or would have "used").
The "missing vocabulary" is a figment of your imagination, because the context of the Scriptures, and the written word by other Biblical inspired writers of the Scriptures concerning the same subject attest to the same principle being given.

If the NT church had infant baptism, there would have been ceremonies or some other Biblical mention of it. The Bible is void of mention of anything infant baptism like. The Catholics use the context argument. "Cornelius's household had babies argument." The context you speak of does not exist. People have been proven to see patterns where none exist, especially when they want to see a pattern. There are valid Biblical patterns, but those patterns are written. Do you want to agree to infant baptism by the same loose association you use?

All of that is heresy. Has nothing to do with Acts2 and Peter's speech.
Some do add things which are not in agreement with the message. Context does matter to understanding the message. A string of unrelated sentences amounts to jibberish/confusion.

e r. m., Are you claiming that a principle of GOD has to be repeated "x" times by GOD to be valid???

In order to be a principle they've gotta be mentioned at least 1 time. Or at least the principle that isn't mentioned cannot be cancelled by the principle that is mentioned when they contradict. E.g. - Acts 2:38 vs. Baptism as a public profession of faith. I see a consistent pattern among Baptist type believers that they believe they have spoken on God's behalf to fill in the gaps where the Bible is silent. This is about the fifth time I've seen this. Catholics also believe they have this authority.

I'll take that as one time by GOD is sufficient. GOD is the one and only Authority to make or suspend HIS "Thus saith the LORD"/"It is written".

Isn't that what Paul is doing in Rom.6:1-11 by Jesus by whom forgiveness and salvation is obtained??

This is what O mean. Baptists can't look at Romans 6 without using one of those two words. Paul would have done the same had he it that way. If not in Romans 6, somewhere. He had the capacity as demonstrated in Romans 4 and he had plenty of opportunity throughout the NT. There's no evidence of any kind that he saw it that way. If he did, then he also baptized babies in the Philippian jailer's house.

e r. m., vss.3-4, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
That is Symbolic and as John 3:16 verifies it is in the Believing that Jesus paid the death penalty for ones self that one will not perish. That's "forgiveness and "salvation".
I don't believe in "infant baptisms", nor that any text sanctions such. GOD'S Justice, Love, and Mercy will prevail in all that are not Baptized---(i.e.)Thief on the cross with Jesus.(Which is symbolic or representative of the situation.)

Isn't it by "Believeing/Faith" in that Sacrifice/death of Jesus Christ that one adds the "In the name of" to the dunking in the "water".
Yes.

The "water" may remove some of the dirt/filth from the external body, but it cannot have any power to remove the guilty charge against the life of the person.

1 Peter 3:21 says baptism saves & gives the answer of a good conscience toward God. It says baptism does both.

It was "the like figure"(symbolic/represents) which was seen in the context of being "purchased by the precious Blood of Jesus Christ". (1:18-22) that the conclusion of (3:21) was made.
You have agreed previously that "water" alone cannot save.

That "gives the answer of a good conscience toward GOD" is believing in the mission which GOD the Father gave HIS SON to do-- Be the propitiation for the Sins of ALL who Believe HIM.

Neither will the confessing and Repenting----therefore, we are back to the "In the name of"---the only name by which a person obtains "forgiveness and salvation"

.

That's why they're baptized 'in Jesus's name.
Repentance Luke 13:5, Acts 2:38
Confession Romans 10:9-10

Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Being baptized in Elijah's name won't save anyone.

Jesus not only used symbolism to refer to HIMSELF, but said, that "serpent on the pole" would indicate that all who looked with "Faith"/Belief" in HIS Mission to "seek and save the lost" would not be disappointed.
Belief of course is expected. Jesus was explicit though, Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

So is the Believing in the fulfilling by Jesus all the things HE did to secure one's freedom from the penalty of death; Or just a profession of "Faith" in them?

 

[sincerly]

No doubt that you believe in baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Difference with our contexts, like I had said before, water baptism is written in the Bible, symbolic terminology is not.

I believe in Water baptism and by the Holy Spirit.

E R. M., You might not want to see the symbolic terminology of Baptism in the N.T.(Bible), but it is there as shown in Rom.6:1-11.
Notice: 1Cor.10:1-4, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud(that followed them day and night) and in the sea;
Paul began that epistle with(1:17-18), "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. "

That preaching of the Gospel---contains the Cross(and all it entails) and why the "IN the Name of Jesus Christ" is necessarilly included in the event of Baptism. Without that phrase, baptism would have no value.

 

[e.r.m.]

Timeful and tedious, I will respond. But until I do,
PLEASE highlight for me the symbolic "words" in that passage, or where it says baptism to symbolize... don't say "the whole thing" or "in between the lines", Bold or underline or highlight the words.

Romans 6:3-4
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? [4] Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

This passage says we have been baptized into Christ Jesus so that we might walk in the newness of life, that is the purpose of baptism, those words can be pointed out, that's scripture.

 

[sincerly]

Timeful and tedious, I will respond. But until I do,
PLEASE highlight for me the symbolic "words" in that passage, or where it says baptism to symbolize... don't say "the whole thing" or "in between the lines", Bold or underline or highlight the words.

Romans 6:3-4
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? [4] Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."

This passage says we have been baptized into Christ Jesus so that we might walk in the newness of life, that is the purpose of baptism, those words can be pointed out, that's scripture.

e r. m., The messages were inspired, but individual words to express that message were NOT. Your looking for specific words of your choosing to make the message as you choose are not valid. The intent of the message by the Writer is seen in the context.

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

As you can see, a few words are different, but the meaning is the same. The religious symbolism is plain in both translations. NO, the specific word "symbolic" isn't spelled out, but the discerning reader understands that symbolic usage.
I underlined previously, in this post, I'll use colors. See above.

What both Translations are saying is---it is Christ's Death that one is baptized into and it is HIS Resurrection by which one has newness of life.

 

[e.r.m.]

e r. m., The messages were inspired, but individual words to express that message were NOT. Your looking for specific words of your choosing to make the message as you choose are not valid. The intent of the message by the Writer is seen in the context.

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

As you can see, a few words are different, but the meaning is the same. The religious symbolism is plain in both translations. NO, the specific word "symbolic" isn't spelled out, but the discerning reader understands that symbolic usage.
I underlined previously, in this post, I'll use colors. See above.

What both Translations are saying is---it is Christ's Death that one is baptized into and it is HIS Resurrection by which one has newness of life.

The messages were inspired, but individual words to express that message were NOT. Your looking for specific words of your choosing to make the message as you choose are not valid.
But the words that I claim are the message are there, and the words you claim are the message are not. Why can't yours be?
A written message holds weight over a perceived one. When it comes to scripture, I go with something written over something not written.

The intent of the message by the Writer is seen in the context.
You are inserting your intent and calling it his
The intent is stated as
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
and that we were baptized in order that we may/should walk in the newness of life.
Paul was refering to not sinning anymore after our new life after baptism - not baptism as a symbol for ... - Again you are seeing what you've been accustomed to see.

KJV: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. "
As you can see, a few words are different, but the meaning is the same. The religious symbolism is plain in both translations.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom6.pdf - Direct greek translation.
3 or ye are unknowing that as many as we are dipized into anointing into the death of him we are dipized 4 we were together entombed then to/with him through the dipism into the death that as even (ὥσπερ,c \{hoce'-per} [SIZE=-1]1) just as, even as) [/SIZE]was roused anointed out of dead ones through the esteem/glory of the Father thus (aοὕτω,d \{hoo'-to} [SIZE=-1]1) in this manner, thus, so) a[/SIZE]nd we in the newness of life should be about treading.
The greek does not indicate the symbolism you perceive.

 

[sincerly]

The messages were inspired, but individual words to express that message were NOT. Your looking for specific words of your choosing to make the message as you choose are not valid.
But the words that I claim are the message are there, and the words you claim are the message are not. Why can't yours be?
A written message holds weight over a perceived one. When it comes to scripture, I go with something written over something not written.

The intent of the message by the Writer is seen in the context.
You are inserting your intent and calling it his
The intent is stated as
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
and that we were baptized in order that we may/should walk in the newness of life.
Paul was refering to not sinning anymore after our new life after baptism - not baptism as a symbol for ... - Again you are seeing what you've been accustomed to see.

KJV: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. "
As you can see, a few words are different, but the meaning is the same. The religious symbolism is plain in both translations.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom6.pdf - Direct greek translation.
3 or ye are unknowing that as many as we are dipized into anointing into the death of him we are dipized 4 we were together entombed then to/with him through the dipism into the death that as even (ὥσπερ,c \{hoce'-per} [SIZE=-1]1) just as, even as) [/SIZE]was roused anointed out of dead ones through the esteem/glory of the Father thus (aοὕτω,d \{hoo'-to} [SIZE=-1]1) in this manner, thus, so) a[/SIZE]nd we in the newness of life should be about treading.
The greek does not indicate the symbolism you perceive.

e r. m., One is Baptized INTO HIM(Christ Jesus)---It is Christ Jesus who does the Saving. Other wise, that language would NOT be necessary. And The Baptism by itself would be sufficent. The "Onlineinterliner" is giving the same message as the NIV and KJV. It is you who refuse to preceive the Message given in the Epistle/Bible.

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?

 

[e.r.m.]

e r. m., One is Baptized INTO HIM(Christ Jesus)---It is Christ Jesus who does the Saving. Other wise, that language would NOT be necessary. And The Baptism by itself would be sufficent. The "Onlineinterliner" is giving the same message as the NIV and KJV. It is you who refuse to preceive the Message given in the Epistle/Bible.

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?

Paul doesn't use your language here or anywhere else in the Bible. You're grabbing at straws and splitting hairs. When Paul talks of symbols and signs, he talks explicitly like he did in chapter 4. That's how he would speak 'somewhere' if he'd believed that about baptism - and he didn't. Romans 6 is totally different language than Romans 4.

It is a common misexpression that baptism is not from Jesus. That water baptism and Jesus are divorced. That it's one or the other.
Jesus is not out of water baptism. Baptism is from Jesus. Jesus saves at water baptism, being that baptism comes after belief and repentance.
Even those that believe salvation comes at the moment of first belief, contend that Jesus saves 'when' they believe, not the belief itself. If Jesus wasn't willing to save, that belief would do no good. Jesus saves at water baptism, that is the belief, has always been. But it happens at baptism, not before. Acts 2:38 Water baptism in Jesus's name is for the purpose of forgiveness of sins.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r. m., One is Baptized INTO HIM(Christ Jesus)---It is Christ Jesus who does the Saving. Other wise, that language would NOT be necessary. And The Baptism by itself would be sufficent. The "Onlineinterliner" is giving the same message as the NIV and KJV. It is you who refuse to preceive the Message given in the Epistle/Bible.

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?

Paul doesn't use your language here or anywhere else in the Bible. You're grabbing at straws and splitting hairs. When Paul talks of symbols and signs, he talks explicitly like he did in chapter 4. That's how he would speak 'somewhere' if he'd believed that about baptism - and he didn't. Romans 6 is totally different language than Romans 4.

It is a common misexpression that baptism is not from Jesus. That water baptism and Jesus are divorced. That it's one or the other.
Jesus is not out of water baptism. Baptism is from Jesus. Jesus saves at water baptism, being that baptism comes after belief and repentance.
Even those that believe salvation comes at the moment of first belief, contend that Jesus saves 'when' they believe, not the belief itself. If Jesus wasn't willing to save, that belief would do no good. Jesus saves at water baptism, that is the belief, has always been. But it happens at baptism, not before. Acts 2:38 Water baptism in Jesus's name is for the purpose of forgiveness of sins.

e r. m., I see by your last sentence that you are still of the opinion that it is the water which does the saving.
Rom.4 and Rom.6 are stating the same message concerning that principle of saving. That it is "Faith" in the Words/promises of GOD which justifies one to be in the presence of GOD.
GOD sent HIS SON to be the means of Atonement/propitiation for all of mankind who by a tenacious "Faith"(NOT false profession) accept HIS gracious offer of Salvation.
Yes, Rom.4 used Abraham and Circumcision as the conveyer of the message and Rom.6 used Christ's death and burial for the same idea---"Faith" in the Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ.

Jesus likened/linked the being born again to baptism. There is no "divorce" of Jesus and "water baptism" in my understanding. However, it is in/through the Blood of Christ by which one's death penalty/SIN is "blotted out"/erased---Not the water in which one is immersed.

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r. m., One is Baptized INTO HIM(Christ Jesus)---It is Christ Jesus who does the Saving. Other wise, that language would NOT be necessary. And The Baptism by itself would be sufficent. The "Onlineinterliner" is giving the same message as the NIV and KJV. It is you who refuse to preceive the Message given in the Epistle/Bible.

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?

 

[e.r.m.]

Sincerly,

Heb.9 refers to the OT symbolism of the facts of animal sacrifices representing the Fact that it was Jesus Christ who was the "very image", by which, those "shadows" the animals (which had been sacrificed through the years)--represented-- to Atone for the Sinner's Disobedience---by which "forgiveness" was obtained.
Jesus Christ "fulfilled" that "ordained" plan which was in place from "before the foundation of the world".
Hebrews 9:1, 9-10, 12-14
Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. [9] This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. [10] They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings---external regulations applying until the time of the new order. [12] He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. [13] The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. [14] How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Hebrews 9 definitely states the "illustration and "copy" between the earthly sanctuary and blood of animals to the heavenly sanctuary and the blood of Christ. This shows that Bible authors had the capacity to describe baptism as illustrative of ..., a copy of..., very non-kryptic straightforward language as they did here. The Bible discusses the blood of animals and the sanctuary with this language, but the Bible never discusses baptism with this language.

John the baptist was the for-runner to lay the foundation for the transistion of the "fullness of time" when Jesus Christ "the Lamb slain(promised) from before the foundation of the world" would fulfill that mission. Repent and be baptized.
John was the fore runner, agreed

Jesus came(in the fullness of time) Baptizing with water and the Holy Spirit.
Actually Jesus ddn't baptize with the Holy Spirit until after he ascended.
John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
Acts 1:4-5 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. [5] For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Jesus and the other Apostles wrapped up the purpose of baptism in Paul's showing that the confessing, Repentant, with full remorse, Sinner would be Baptised acknowledging(in Faith) that the death of Jesus Christ freed one from the Sin debt of death and that the sinner was now alive in the new birth(Spiritually). (Rom.6:1-11) "IN the name of Jesus Christ".
I will catch when you try to mix in what is NOT in scripture with what is.
Romans 10:9-10 - Confessing.
Luke 13:5, Acts 2:38 - Repentance
Acts 2:37 - Remorse/contrite.
Acts 2:38 - Baptism
XXX - Acknowledging that...

Honestly, that's shameful. It doesn't seem that way to you because you've heard this additive alongside scripture for I don't know how long, that it is as important to you as scripture.

All of that is heresy. Has nothing to do with Acts 2 and Peter's speech.
Catholics say things like:
I don't think it's quite so clear as you're letting on here. The bible is also pretty clear that individuals "and [their] whole household" were baptized. This would have included children. You're failing to take into account two very important cultural differences between us and the ancients: ... In that culture, the man of the house was not only legally and temporally responsible for those in his household, but also spiritually responsible. The man spoke for his wife, children and servants, because they were afforded no voice for themselves. In light of this, it's probable that small children were baptized, upon their father's consent, and that that baptism was considered efficacious. Post #34.

He is using the same argument to support infant baptism as you are using to support baptized, acknowleding that... - "let's not look at the letter of the law, let's look beteen the lines at the big picture. People were baptized acknowledging(in faith) that..."
NEITHER OF THEM ARE WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURE, no matter what inuendo you are trying to draw out of them. Acknowleding that... and infant baptism fall into the same category. Both of you are claiming to speak on behalf of the Bible on what it "really means", even though the specified language isn't there. The only difference is the content of what you are adding. In defense of catholics, they don't claim the Bible as their sole source of doctrine, whereas you do.

Some do add things which are not in agreement with the message. Context does matter to understanding the message. A string of unrelated sentences amounts to jibberish/confusion.
Pope Nicholas
Wherefore no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things. Yea, with the very precepts of Christ.
Ibid, Pratt, p. 159
It is not within your power to decide a non-written context. For there to be a context, the presidence of getting "baptized to acknowledge that..." must be written, then it could be applied to other passages on baptism - A context would be established. Reformers fought against statements like the one above, because they viewed the scriptures as the ultimate authority. Don't stray from that.

I'll take that as one time by GOD is sufficient. GOD is the one and only Authority to make or suspend HIS "Thus saith the LORD"/"It is written".
Agreed, thst is why Jesus could forgive Luke 5:24 without animal sacrifices.

e r. m., vss.3-4,
That is Symbolic and as John 3:16 verifies it is in the Believing that Jesus paid the death penalty for ones self that one will not perish. That's "forgiveness and "salvation".
It also says Luke 13:5 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." and Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." It's not multiple choice, it's all the above. This is an example of context to John 3:16, because they're written.

I don't believe in "infant baptisms", nor that any text sanctions such.
There is no text that sanctions such.

GOD'S Justice, Love, and Mercy will prevail in all that are not Baptized---(i.e.)Thief on the cross with Jesus.
The command to be baptized in Jesus's name wasn't given until after Jesus's resurrection.

(Which is symbolic or representative of the situation.)
You say.

It was "the like figure" (symbolic/represents) which was seen in the context of being "purchased by the precious Blood of Jesus Christ". (1:18-22) that the conclusion of (3:21) was made.
The water from the flood was the like figure toward baptism. Baptism is not written to be a like figure of anything. Oh, but it does say (NASB) "baptism now saves you--through the resurrectiom of Jesus Christ".

You have agreed previously that "water" alone cannot save.
Previous post.

That "gives the answer of a good conscience toward GOD" is believing in the mission which GOD the Father gave HIS SON to do-- Be the propitiation for the Sins of ALL who Believe HIM.
That baptism "gives the answer of a good conscience toward GOD"

Notice: 1Cor.10:1-4,
I was looking at this this scripture. Quite interesting. It is a symbolic baptism since they walked on dry land. The egyptians are the one who got immersed. Either way, they were not baptized in Jesus's name which is with water. Acts 10:47-48 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." [48] So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Baptized into Moses is not Acts 2:38.

Paul began that epistle with(1:17-18),
That preaching of the Gospel---contains the Cross(and all it entails) and why the "IN the Name of Jesus Christ" is necessarilly included in the event of Baptism. Without that phrase, baptism would have no value.
Why do baptists always create a reason for saying "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" when Paul already gives his own reason?
1 Corinthians 1:13-16 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? [14] I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, [15] so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. [16] (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.

 

[e.r.m.]

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r. m., One is Baptized INTO HIM(Christ Jesus)---It is Christ Jesus who does the Saving. Other wise, that language would NOT be necessary. And The Baptism by itself would be sufficent. The "Onlineinterliner" is giving the same message as the NIV and KJV. It is you who refuse to preceive the Message given in the Epistle/Bible.

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?

e r. m., I see by your last sentence that you are still of the opinion that it is the water which does the saving.
Rom.4 and Rom.6 are stating the same message concerning that principle of saving. That it is "Faith" in the Words/promises of GOD which justifies one to be in the presence of GOD.
GOD sent HIS SON to be the means of Atonement/propitiation for all of mankind who by a tenacious "Faith"(NOT false profession) accept HIS gracious offer of Salvation.
Yes, Rom.4 used Abraham and Circumcision as the conveyer of the message and Rom.6 used Christ's death and burial for the same idea---"Faith" in the Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ.

Jesus likened/linked the being born again to baptism. There is no "divorce" of Jesus and "water baptism" in my understanding. However, it is in/through the Blood of Christ by which one's death penalty/SIN is "blotted out"/erased---Not the water in which one is immersed.

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r. m., One is Baptized INTO HIM(Christ Jesus)---It is Christ Jesus who does the Saving. Other wise, that language would NOT be necessary. And The Baptism by itself would be sufficent. The "Onlineinterliner" is giving the same message as the NIV and KJV. It is you who refuse to preceive the Message given in the Epistle/Bible.

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?

Originally Posted by sincerly
e r. m., One is Baptized INTO HIM(Christ Jesus)---It is Christ Jesus who does the Saving. Other wise, that language would NOT be necessary. And The Baptism by itself would be sufficent. The "Onlineinterliner" is giving the same message as the NIV and KJV. It is you who refuse to preceive the Message given in the Epistle/Bible.

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?

e r. m., I see by your last sentence that you are still of the opinion that it is the water which does the saving.
Repeat: Jesus saves at baptism

Rom.4 and Rom.6 are stating the same message concerning that principle of saving. That it is "Faith" in the Words/promises of GOD which justifies one to be in the presence of GOD.
Paul referred to "the sign of circumcision". Paul had the capacity for being explicit if he considered baptism in the same way.

GOD sent HIS SON to be the means of Atonement/propitiation for all of mankind who by a tenacious "Faith"(NOT false profession) accept HIS gracious offer of Salvation.
You're not saying faith, you're saying faith alone. It's not faith alone.

Jesus likened/linked the being born again to baptism. There is no "divorce" of Jesus and "water baptism" in my understanding. However, it is in/through the Blood of Christ by which one's death penalty/SIN is "blotted out"/erased---Not the water in which one is immersed.
-At baptism

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?[/I]
Yes, at baptism.

 

[sincerly]

e r. m., I see by your last sentence that you are still of the opinion that it is the water which does the saving.
Repeat: Jesus saves at baptism

Rom.4 and Rom.6 are stating the same message concerning that principle of saving. That it is "Faith" in the Words/promises of GOD which justifies one to be in the presence of GOD.
Paul referred to "the sign of circumcision". Paul had the capacity for being explicit if he considered baptism in the same way.

GOD sent HIS SON to be the means of Atonement/propitiation for all of mankind who by a tenacious "Faith"(NOT false profession) accept HIS gracious offer of Salvation.
You're not saying faith, you're saying faith alone. It's not faith alone.

Jesus likened/linked the being born again to baptism. There is no "divorce" of Jesus and "water baptism" in my understanding. However, it is in/through the Blood of Christ by which one's death penalty/SIN is "blotted out"/erased---Not the water in which one is immersed.
-At baptism

Again, Does/DID the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross supply the Blood by which one is saved?[/i]
Yes, at baptism.

Whew!! You finally and reluctantly acknowledged that it is Jesus' Blood which Saves in the act of Baptism.

 

[e.r.m.]

Whew!! You finally and reluctantly acknowledged that it is Jesus' Blood which Saves in the act of Baptism.

I'm not admitting this, I've been saying this.

 

[sincerly]

I'm not admitting this, I've been saying this.

Then you have been disputing my posts for saying that fact all along.