The Unitarian Problem

[Redemptionsong]

But you are arguing against what the scripture says about water baptism. Please show me scripture saying baptism is a show of intention, or initiation into the church. Show me a scripture where they ever baptized a baby. A baby doesn't know right from wrong. A baby can't repent. So why should a baby be baptized?

It doesn't say water and the Spirit go together to form one baptism. Ephesians 4:5 is referring to their only being one water baptism. (It was probably mentioned here in the book of Ephesians, because the disciples who were baptized a 2nd time in Acts 19:1-5 were from Ephesus.)

There is a water baptism, and there is a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 6:1-2 refers to the doctrine of baptisms (plural). Even John the baptist had said I indeed baptize with water, but one comes after me who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

You didn't answer my question to you - If water baptism wasn't necessary, why were they baptized again in Acts 19:1-5?

In Acts 19:1-5 the believers at Ephesus did receive a second baptism in water, because they wished to demonstrate their faith in Jesus. When they did publicly demonstrate repentance and belief, Paul laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 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.'

This statement of Peter's is the first occasion after Pentecost that new converts had the opportunity to demonstrate repentance and faith, and thereafter to receive the Holy Spirit. The baptism in water is a preparation for the coming of the Holy Spirit, and that preparation is in the heart and mind of the believer. Water is the outward ordinance or sacrament. The remission of sin is not from water cleansing the soul but from the faith one places in Christ as an atoning sacrifice.

In Acts 8:13 we hear the story of Simon of Samaria. Philip preached in Samaria and Simon was amongst those who believed the things concerning the kingdom of God. 'Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.'

So, Simon was baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus [verse 16]. Yet, he had not received the Holy Spirit and was willing to pay money to receive it. In verses 20,21 it says, 'But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.'

It is possible, I believe, for a person to be baptised in water and for his heart not to be right in the sight of God. Equally, it is possible for a person, such as Cornelius, to have a heart that is right in the sight of God, and to receive the gift of God even before a public baptism in water takes place. Just prior to receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter had said, 'To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.' Here, the emphasis is not on water as the cleansing agent, but belief.

Ephesians 4:5 must be a reference to both water and the Spirit, because both aspects are necessary for entry into the kingdom of God. How can you argue the case for John 3:5 and then deny that both are not part of Ephesians 4:5?

There is also another matter that bothers me. You say that babies were never baptised in water, and that only the adult faithful were baptised with water. This suggests to me, following your argument, that you believe that all persons who are infant baptised, even when confirmed at a later date, are not eligible for entry into the kingdom of God. If adult water baptism is the only means by which remission of sins occurs, then all who belong to denominations that practise infant baptism, including all Catholics and Anglicans, cannot possibly enter the kingdom of God. Is that what you believe?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

In Acts 19:1-5 the believers at Ephesus did receive a second baptism in water, because they wished to demonstrate their faith in Jesus. When they did publicly demonstrate repentance and belief, Paul laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 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.'

This statement of Peter's is the first occasion after Pentecost that new converts had the opportunity to demonstrate repentance and faith, and thereafter to receive the Holy Spirit. The baptism in water is a preparation for the coming of the Holy Spirit, and that preparation is in the heart and mind of the believer. Water is the outward ordinance or sacrament. The remission of sin is not from water cleansing the soul but from the faith one places in Christ as an atoning sacrifice.

In Acts 8:13 we hear the story of Simon of Samaria. Philip preached in Samaria and Simon was amongst those who believed the things concerning the kingdom of God. 'Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.'

So, Simon was baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus [verse 16]. Yet, he had not received the Holy Spirit and was willing to pay money to receive it. In verses 20,21 it says, 'But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.'

It is possible, I believe, for a person to be baptised in water and for his heart not to be right in the sight of God. Equally, it is possible for a person, such as Cornelius, to have a heart that is right in the sight of God, and to receive the gift of God even before a public baptism in water takes place. Just prior to receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter had said, 'To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.' Here, the emphasis is not on water as the cleansing agent, but belief.

Ephesians 4:5 must be a reference to both water and the Spirit, because both aspects are necessary for entry into the kingdom of God. How can you argue the case for John 3:5 and then deny that both are not part of Ephesians 4:5?

There is also another matter that bothers me. You say that babies were never baptised in water, and that only the adult faithful were baptised with water. This suggests to me, following your argument, that you believe that all persons who are infant baptised, even when confirmed at a later date, are not eligible for entry into the kingdom of God. If adult water baptism is the only means by which remission of sins occurs, then all who belong to denominations that practise infant baptism, including all Catholics and Anglicans, cannot possibly enter the kingdom of God. Is that what you believe?

No need to continue. I have given you scriptures and you have the right not to believe them.