Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

[Carry_Your_Name]

The only problem was that they were being divisive based on their contentions.
What those were is not spelled out, with the exception of whom they were "of".

Paul used that as a worst case scenario, in a "church" that was being divisive according to who had taught them the doctrines of Christ.

Yes, that's a form of celebrity worship and Nicolaitanism, following the teacher's interpretation of the bible instead of studying it themselves, that's still the status quo in most churches where the congregation doesn't study, discuss or even just bother to read the bible, all of their theological knowledge comes from their pastor.

Yep, the very worst scenario.
But not one that had actually occurred.
The problem was division.

That is not stated in 1 Corinthians.
It is only cited as a worst case scenario of what might happen.

You don't know whether this was Paul's sarcasm or his disapproval of a real scenario where some of them did claim they were baptized in the baptizer's name. You've assumed that's just a hypothetical scenario, but Paul had responded to many pressing issues in various churches in his letters, this contention and diviseness is the first on the list.

They cited what they experienced.

The 12 at Ephesus answered a question from Paul. (What baptism did you experience ?)
In 1 Cor 1, Paul gave a worst case scenario for division.

So? Whether they were baptized in John's name or in anybody's or nobody's name, it doesn't matter. They hadn't received the Holy Spirit until Paul laid hands on them.

The were not in possession of the gift of the Holy Ghost, until Paul laid hands on them.
Whether or not they were saved would be decided on the day of judgement anyway.

Those men were absolutely saved when the Holy Spirit descended upon them. They were not subject to the white throne judgement which is only reserved for the unbelievers.

I am not sure the Levitical washings involved "immersion".

That depends on your understanding of "bathe in water" in Lev. 14.

John's baptism unto repentance was about salvation, as it is written..."And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins," (Luke 1:76-77)
With..."And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;" (Luke 3:3)
In John's days, salvation was by the remission of sins.
Isn't it still ?

Except we're not living in John's days anymore. Any pastor who baptizes is still doing John the Baptist's job, but it is now the blood of Jesus that washes away our sins., Matt. 3:11.

Agreed, but I don't know why you mentioned it.

I mentioned it because you've falsely assumed that water baptism is equal to repentance of sin, thus it's necessary for salvation. That is debunked by those Pharisees who came to get baptized in order to "flee from the coming wrath" (Matt. 3:7). None of them could be saved as long as they were a "brood of vipers".

I disagree.
It is written..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

Paul was converted on the road to Damascus BEFORE he was baptized, not after.

The Samarians that had their past sins washed away, when Philip baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
On that we agree.
But my comment was about rebirth.

Yes, the topic in question is "is water baptism necessary for salvation", the answer, according to Lord Jesus himself and exemplified in this case in Acts 8, is NO. What's necessary for salvation is natual birth and spiritual birth, water baptism is just a ritual that imitates natural birth. In some cases the descending of the Holy Spirit immediately follows, in other cases not.

Please supply the verse saying that.

"When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3:16-17)

Yep.
The Samarians, (are that also called Samaritans ?), had not all repented of sins first.
The 12 at Ephesus had not been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins first.
Both provided God with the opportunity to illustrate that the gift of the Holy Ghost could be passed on by truly repentant men.

No, it only proves that correlation is NOT causation, just because one's baptized doesn't mean their sins are remitted, otherwise the holy spirit would've immediately descended upon them and they'd be saved. "Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" is a misleading phrase.

I don't know.
The Lord must have, via the Holy Spirit, relayed to Peter that it could be done that way for new converts.

He baptized the Ethiopean eunuch (Acts 8:38), was the eunuch saved? Did his salvation require Peter to lay hand on him as well?

It is faith without the works of the Law, like Paul has been saying over and over again in his epistles.
Define "Sola Scriptura" in the context of obeying the doctrines of Christ for salvation ?

Faith comes first before obedience, discipline or any work in Christ. You won't obey what you have no faith in, soon or later your willpower is gonna be depleted.

It isn't, if one won't quit committing sin.
Repentance from sin comes first.

He wasn't "saved".
He wasn't even converted.

As long as water baptism doesn't result in repentance from sin, it's not necessary for salvation.

John 3:4-6 has nothing to so with water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
Except that of baptism being the vehicle to facilitate the rebirth.

Yes, but it has been erroneously quoted to justify water baptism salvation.

Paul writes in Rom 6, that as we are killed and buried with Christ, we are also raised with Him to walk in newness of life.
That is how we are reborn.

Agree. Water baptism is a ritual to signify that.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Amen.

Calling on the Name of the LORD is how our sins are forgiven because we are obeying the Gospel.

Confessing Jesus as LORD is how we are saved and sanctified by His blood.

For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:13-17

Physical water can not wash away sins.

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

"Calling on the name of the Lord" is accomplished at baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
Acts 22:16..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yes, that's a form of celebrity worship and Nicolaitanism,

What is Nicolaitionism ?
Scripture, please.
"Celebrity worship" ?
Maybe, or at least close to it.

following the teacher's interpretation of the bible instead of studying it themselves, that's still the status quo in most churches where the congregation doesn't study, discuss or even just bother to read the bible, all of their theological knowledge comes from their pastor.

OK.
A worst case scenario.

You don't know whether this was Paul's sarcasm or his disapproval of a real scenario where some of them did claim they were baptized in the baptizer's name. You've assumed that's just a hypothetical scenario, but Paul had responded to many pressing issues in various churches in his letters, this contention and diviseness is the first on the list.

We are both assuming things.
Biblically, we know the "church" at Corinth was getting divisive.
And they were not supposed to.

So? Whether they were baptized in John's name or in anybody's or nobody's name, it doesn't matter. They hadn't received the Holy Spirit until Paul laid hands on them.

True, though if the baptism was done in a name other than Jesus', there would be no remission of sins.
And no gift of the Holy Ghost, as the Spirit of God won't reside in a polluted temple.

Those men were absolutely saved when the Holy Spirit descended upon them. They were not subject to the white throne judgement which is only reserved for the unbelievers.

I will say they were converted.
But they still had a race to finish.

That depends on your understanding of "bathe in water" in Lev. 14.

True, though the only place I found "bathe in water" was Lev 15.
"Bathe", in Lev 15 was a different Hebrew word than "dipped" used in 2 Kings 5.
I don't get the impression that Lev 15's "bathe" was a full immersion.

Except we're not living in John's days anymore. Any pastor who baptizes is still doing John the Baptist's job, but it is now the blood of Jesus that washes away our sins., Matt. 3:11.

John's "job" was to use baptism unto repentance to remit past sins.
So you are correct.
In the NT, the repentant are water baptized using Jesus' name for the remission of past sins.
The water and the blood agree in one. (1 John 5:8)

I mentioned it because you've falsely assumed that water baptism is equal to repentance of sin,

Not at all.
Baptism is a waste of time for the unrepentant.
One precedes the other.

thus it's necessary for salvation.

Both are necessary for salvation.

That is debunked by those Pharisees who came to get baptized in order to "flee from the coming wrath" (Matt. 3:7). None of them could be saved as long as they were a "brood of vipers".

They wouldn't repent.

Paul was converted on the road to Damascus BEFORE he was baptized, not after.

I agree with that.
But until he was baptized for the remission of sins, he was still not worthy of eternal life.
Or of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, the topic in question is "is water baptism necessary for salvation", the answer, according to Lord Jesus himself and exemplified in this case in Acts 8, is NO.

Is remission of past sins necessary for salvation ?
Yes.
That is what Jesus shed His blood for !
Show where Jesus said otherwise .

What's necessary for salvation is natual birth and spiritual birth, water baptism is just a ritual that imitates natural birth.

Why get baptized to ritualize a human event that ends up with corrupt sinning ?

In some cases the descending of the Holy Spirit immediately follows, in other cases not.

Perhaps you can cite one time where the Holy Ghost was given immediately after baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins. (without the laying on of hands)
I can't think of any.

"When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3:16-17)

Are you really likening sinners' baptism to Jesus' baptism ?
He had no reason to repent of sin, so was fit for the Holy Ghost's residency before His baptism by John.

No, it only proves that correlation is NOT causation, just because one's baptized doesn't mean their sins are remitted,

True.
Without a real repentance from sin, baptism is just a bath.

otherwise the holy spirit would've immediately descended upon them and they'd be saved.

I am not about to dictate what God must do.

"Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" is a misleading phrase.

Baptism without repentance from sin is a waste of time.
BTW, it is written in Mark 1:4..."John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

He baptized the Ethiopean eunuch (Acts 8:38), was the eunuch saved?

Who really knows if he was even converted.
I'ld hope so, but salvation still depends an the day of judgement's findings.

Did his salvation require Peter to lay hand on him as well?

Peter was nowhere around at the eunuch's baptism, and his reception of the Holy Ghost is not even mentioned.

Faith comes first before obedience, discipline or any work in Christ. You won't obey what you have no faith in, soon or later your willpower is gonna be depleted.

Yep, again pointing out that it is the faithless who commit sins.

As long as water baptism doesn't result in repentance from sin, it's not necessary for salvation.

Baptism for the remission of past sins is pointless for the unrepentant.
Both repentance from sin and remission of past sins are necessary for salvation.

Yes, but it has been erroneously quoted to justify water baptism salvation.

Correct, wrongly cited.

Agree. Water baptism is a ritual to signify that.

If baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is only a ritual signifying remission of sins, when and where are our past sins actually remitted ?
You agreed with my statement then created a denial of it !

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

What is Nicolaitionism ?
Scripture, please.
"Celebrity worship" ?
Maybe, or at least close to it.

Nicolaitan means to conquer (nico) commoners (laity), especially the untrained and unskilled laymen. They are a group of clergymen who play the gatekeeper of heaven, the congregation has to rely on them to know Jesus.

But you do have this going for you: You hate what the Nicolaitans practice—practices I also hate. (Rev. 2:6)
In the same way, there are also some among you who follow the teaching of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15)

We are both assuming things.
Biblically, we know the "church" at Corinth was getting divisive.
And they were not supposed to.

Then stop assuming. We may be assuming, but Paul was NOT assuming such a "scenario".

True, though if the baptism was done in a name other than Jesus', there would be no remission of sins.
And no gift of the Holy Ghost, as the Spirit of God won't reside in a polluted temple.

No remission of sin as there was no immediate receiving of the Holy Spirit, even when it was done in Jesus's name, in the Samaritans' case.

I will say they were converted.
But they still had a race to finish.

That's work-based religion. Where they end up in the race determines their reward, not their salvation, 1 Cor. 3:15-16.

True, though the only place I found "bathe in water" was Lev 15.
"Bathe", in Lev 15 was a different Hebrew word than "dipped" used in 2 Kings 5.
I don't get the impression that Lev 15's "bathe" was a full immersion.

Yet the context is the same - cleansing of leprosy. That context determines the meaning.

John's "job" was to use baptism unto repentance to remit past sins.
So you are correct.
In the NT, the repentant are water baptized using Jesus' name for the remission of past sins.
The water and the blood agree in one. (1 John 5:8)

Water and blood are not interchangeable. You're conflating the two. If they were the same, then there'd be no need to turn water into blood in the bowl judgements.

Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters saying:
“You are righteous, O Lord,
The One who is and who was and who is to be,
Because You have judged these things.
For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets,
And You have given them blood to drink.
For it is their just due.”(Rev. 16:4-6)

Not at all.
Baptism is a waste of time for the unrepentant.
One precedes the other.

For the truly repentant, baptism is a public declaration of their repentance; for the unrepentant, as you said, it's a waste of time and water. Either way, water baptism is a ritual.

Both are necessary for salvation.

Both natural birth and spiritual birth are, water baptism is not.

Not at all.
Baptism is a waste of time for the unrepentant.
One precedes the other.

Therefore, they were NOT "baptized for the remission of sins". I believe Jesus's "baptism of fire" is for the unrepentant.

I agree with that.
But until he was baptized for the remission of sins, he was still not worthy of eternal life.
Or of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

You're contradicting the correct order - Paul received the Holy Spirit through the laying of hand first, THEN he was baptized.

And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. (Acts 9:17-18)

Is remission of past sins necessary for salvation ?
Yes.
That is what Jesus shed His blood for !
Show where Jesus said otherwise .

You show me how baptism results in the remission of sins first. So far you've made several statements of the opposite, that baptism is a waste of time without repentance.

Why get baptized to ritualize a human event that ends up with corrupt sinning ?

I've explained the purpose and significane of water baptism in my first reply in this thread, I won't repeat myself.

Perhaps you can cite one time where the Holy Ghost was given immediately after baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins. (without the laying on of hands)
I can't think of any.

Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (Acts 2:41)
"Added to them (the disciples who had just received the Holy Spirit)" means these three thousand received the Holy Spirit as well.

Are you really likening sinners' baptism to Jesus' baptism ?
He had no reason to repent of sin, so was fit for the Holy Ghost's residency before His baptism by John.

I only compared the timing of spiritual rebirth, not the nature.

True.
Without a real repentance from sin, baptism is just a bath.

Therefore a ritual, albeit a pivotal one, not necessary for salvation.

I am not about to dictate what God must do.

Then don't dictate what God must do with water baptism.

Baptism without repentance from sin is a waste of time.
BTW, it is written in Mark 1:4..."John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

He was only preparing the way for Jesus.

Who really knows if he was even converted.
I'ld hope so, but salvation still depends an the day of judgement's findings.

Who are you to guess his salvation status, when it was the Holy Spirit itself instructed Phillip to preach to him?

Peter was nowhere around at the eunuch's baptism, and his reception of the Holy Ghost is not even mentioned.

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.”(Acts 8:37)
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Jn. 3:16)

Yep, again pointing out that it is the faithless who commit sins.

And the faithFUL are empowered to overcome sins.

Baptism for the remission of past sins is pointless for the unrepentant.
Both repentance from sin and remission of past sins are necessary for salvation.

But not the ritual of water baptism.

Correct, wrongly cited.

Then why do you persistently defending their position?

If baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is only a ritual signifying remission of sins, when and where are our past sins actually remitted ?
You agreed with my statement then created a denial of it !

When and where are between the sinner and God. Only Jesus can forgive sin, and only his blood can cleanse sin.

 

[donadams]

Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The NT is abundantly clear about that and that is the gospel. There is not a single work we can do to be declared righteous. In fact, adding even one work is a different gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Does Grace forbid good deeds?

 

[donadams]

The biblical mandate of God’s work of creation!

Water and the spirit!

First creation:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(water and the spirit)

Noah:

Gen 8:8 Also he sent forth a dove (representing the spirit) from him…

(Water and the spirit)

Red Sea:

Led thru the waters by the spirit.
Exodus 13:21
And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

(Water and the spirit)

Josuha

Joshua and the people of Israel crossing of the Jordan led by the spirit.

Joshua 1:1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.

(Water and the spirit)

Prophecy of the new creation: (new covenant)

Ez 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you…
acts 2:38-39 “this promise” is fulfilled in the Christian sacrament of baptismal regeneration!

(Water and the Spirit)

Baptism of Jesus

Jn 1:31 I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

(Water and the spirit)

New creation by water and the spirit

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

First implemented water and the spirit in vs 22

Vs 22 they went to the river (water) and baptized!

(Water and the spirit)

Christian sacrament of baptismal regeneration is by: WATER AND THE SPIRIT!


No one is born again by:

“the spirit alone”!
Or
“Faith alone”!

Water AND the spirit is the biblical mandate!

Insights welcome

 

[Free]

Does Grace forbid good deeds?

For justification, the initial point of salvation, yes, it absolutely does. If even one work is added, then it diminishes grace.

 

[donadams]

For justification, the initial point of salvation, yes, it absolutely does. If even one work is added, then it diminishes grace.

Grace vivifies our works and makes fruitful Jn 15:4

 

[Free]

Grace vivifies our works and makes fruitful Jn 15:4

Sure, but that has nothing to do with justification, only sanctification.

 

[JLB]

Calling on the name of the Lord" is accomplished at baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

No it does not.

Confessing Jesus as Lord is how a person is saved.


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. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10

• 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.

 

[donadams]

Sure, but that has nothing to do with justification, only sanctification.

Ok thks

 

[Dave...]

I agree.
So, those without faith will not get baptized for their atonement, sanctification, justification; ie. their salvation.

I don't recall that, but maybe so.

Sorry, I got mixed up and in the rush I thought that I was replying to Don. You got it right. Thankyou.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

Amen.

Calling on the Name of the LORD is how our sins are forgiven because we are obeying the Gospel.

Confessing Jesus as LORD is how we are saved and sanctified by His blood.

For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:13-17

Physical water can not wash away sins.

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

It's our side of it, yes. Amen.

 

[Dave...]

Faith yes!
Faith alone no!
1 cor 13:2 & 13:12
Phil 1:29

Matt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Who do men say I am, not what do men say about my doctrine!

Jesus Christ is not a doctrine only to be believed!

But also a sacrifice that obtains grace and mercy! Jn 1:16-17 Jn 1:29

And also Jesus Christ (((IS))) our salvation even as and infant! Lk 2:30

We must have union with Christ the only mediator to be in the new covenant and having union with God, eternal life (grace) and be in the communion of saints!

Faith alone won’t do it!

Its a covenant not a Bible study with coffee and doughnuts!

You cannot enter on your own by faith alone! Jn 3:5 but must be born into the new covenant kingdom!

2 pet 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Baptismal regeneration! Jn 3:22

Thanks


If you accept “faith alone” you reject Jesus Christ and His eternal words!

If you accept “faith alone” you reject scripture the inspired “God breathed” word of God!

If you accept “faith alone” You reject the good news of the gospel!

Mk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 pet 3:21 …baptism doth also now save us…

Within the context of justification it is always faith alone.

Within the context of evidence of faith, a justified person will bear the fruit of the Spirit.

This distinction must be made when you try to use passages that speak of works with relation to faith. This is a distinction that you are not making. There is the contexts of the whole bible, also the historical, and the cultural. All these need to be considered when interpreting scripture.

Dave

vidence of one saved and justified = visible faith.

 

[locust]

Luke 23:43

New International Version
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

its not likely that the man Jesus was speaking to was baptised​

 

[Hopeful 2]

Nicolaitan means to conquer (nico) commoners (laity), especially the untrained and unskilled laymen. They are a group of clergymen who play the gatekeeper of heaven, the congregation has to rely on them to know Jesus.

Interesting...

Then stop assuming.

You too.

We may be assuming, but Paul was NOT assuming such a "scenario".

Correct, he knew it was happening.

No remission of sin as there was no immediate receiving of the Holy Spirit, even when it was done in Jesus's name, in the Samaritans' case.

As I said..."the Spirit of God won't reside in a polluted temple."

That's work-based religion.

So what ?
As long as the deeds are not of the Mosaic Law for salvation, God is pleased with our obedience.

Where they end up in the race determines their reward, not their salvation, 1 Cor. 3:15-16.

I disagree with that interpretation.

Yet the context is the same - cleansing of leprosy. That context determines the meaning.

As leprosy is not cleansed by dipping, or sprinkling, the contexts of Lev 14 or 15 you allude to is not there.

Water and blood are not interchangeable. You're conflating the two. If they were the same, then there'd be no need to turn water into blood in the bowl judgements.

Spirit, water, and blood agree in one, as 1 John 5:8 says.
The words are interchangeable, when baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins is concerned.

Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters saying:
“You are righteous, O Lord,
The One who is and who was and who is to be,
Because You have judged these things.
For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets,
And You have given them blood to drink.
For it is their just due.”(Rev. 16:4-6)

I am not going down your side-track.
Perhaps some other time.

For the truly repentant, baptism is a public declaration of their repentance;

I disagree with your minimalization of Jesus' commanded "work".

for the unrepentant, as you said, it's a waste of time and water. Either way, water baptism is a ritual.

If it is only a ritual to you, then I guess you don't believe what baptism accomplishes in Rom 6.
That being, the destruction of the old man and resurrection with Christ "to walk in newness of life".

Both natural birth and spiritual birth are, water baptism is not.

Spiritual birth happens at baptism.
It is where we are raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

Therefore, they were NOT "baptized for the remission of sins".

I don't know how you reached that erroneous conclusion.

I believe Jesus's "baptism of fire" is for the unrepentant.

This side-track of baptism is about the end of the world.

You're contradicting the correct order - Paul received the Holy Spirit through the laying of hand first, THEN he was baptized.

Nothing in Acts describes Paul's reception of the Holy Ghost.
You are jumping to conclusions.

And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. (Acts 9:17-18)

See?
Nothing about the gift of the Holy Ghost being imparted to Saul.

You show me how baptism results in the remission of sins first. So far you've made several statements of the opposite, that baptism is a waste of time without repentance.

Here are three instances of it...
"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4)
"And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (Luke 3:3)
"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." (Acts 2:38)
If the repentance of sin is a lie, the baptism is just a bath.
The unfaithful will not receive the remission of their past sins if they wont "turn from" sin.

I've explained the purpose and significane of water baptism in my first reply in this thread, I won't repeat myself.

Good, I detest false doctrine.

Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (Acts 2:41)
"Added to them (the disciples who had just received the Holy Spirit)" means these three thousand received the Holy Spirit as well.

I hope so, though it isn't written that way.

I only compared the timing of spiritual rebirth, not the nature.

At least you realize that baptism accommodates our rebirth !

Therefore a ritual, albeit a pivotal one, not necessary for salvation.

I guess you could say, that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins is only a ritual for the unrepentant.
For the repentant, though, it is the end of one life and the beginning of another.
The end of walking in and after the flesh and the start of walking in and after the Spirit.
Thanks be to God !

Then don't dictate what God must do with water baptism.

What God does at one's baptism is well documented in scripture.
He remits past sins.
He destroys the old man, and raises the new man with Christ to walk in newness of life.
And it all hinges on a true, permanent, repentance from sin.

He was only preparing the way for Jesus.

Did you really miss the part of that scripture declaring what the baptism did ?
Here it is again...Mark 1:4..."John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

Who are you to guess his salvation status, when it was the Holy Spirit itself instructed Phillip to preach to him?

What was that you wrote earlier about assumptions ?
If something is not written in scripture, only supposition can supply it.

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.”(Acts 8:37)
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Jn. 3:16)

The devils believe too, but they will perish with the other unrepentant haters of God.

And the faithFUL are empowered to overcome sins.

Yep, if one is unrepentant, they are unfaithful...I agree with your posting.

But not the ritual of water baptism.

Call it what you want, the water of baptism is the blood of Christ to me.

Then why do you persistently defending their position?

Any connection between "born of water" and "water baptism" is not a position I defend.
Those who have been "raised with Christ to walk in newness of life", (Rom 6:4), have been reborn of the Spirit.

When and where are between the sinner and God.

So not written in scripture, but conjectured by you ?

Only Jesus can forgive sin, and only his blood can cleanse sin.

I agree, and He instituted water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for that purpose.
Thanks be to God for the amazing gifts of repentance from sin and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins !

BTW, we can forgive sins too, if they are committed against us..

 

[Hopeful 2]

No it does not.
Confessing Jesus as Lord is how a person is saved.
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. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10

• 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.

I disagree with your assumption.
It is written..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

 

[Hopeful 2]

Luke 23:43​

New International Version​

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”​

its not likely that the man Jesus was speaking to was baptised​

Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins.
Not to mention that what the thief was going through is exactly what we go through when we are baptized into Christ's death, burial, and resurrection "for the remission of sins".
We die with Jesus !

BTW, welcome to the site !

 

[locust]

technically when a man dies he pays for his sin. if he were then resurrected he would have no sin. it would be what that one did after the resurrection is what would bring judgment

 

[Hopeful 2]

technically when a man dies he pays for his sin.

Technically, when one dies with Christ, (baptism into His death), we are paid the wages of our sin.

if he were then resurrected he would have no sin.

He is resurrected with Christ, from Christs death. (Rom 6:4)

it would be what that one did after the resurrection is what would bring judgment

If the repentance from sin was true, what comes after judgement is eternal life with Jesus !