1. the versions cited still say be baptized for the remission of sins. forcing another reading based on what the Greek might be able to be read as, is trying to make the Bible fit preconceived notions, the opposite of what s/b done.
2. paul did not receive the Holy Spirit from laying on hands, read Acts 22.
3. “receive baptism as an expressive act of washing away your sins” the Bible does not use the word “expressive” at all in Acts, this is Baptist goggles seeing a word not there. Paul was told to be baptized to wash away his sins, nothing “expressive” about it.
4. the Philippian jailer being told believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved...why? because anyone who truly believes in Jesus will be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.
5. “it isn’t the Church who is filled with the Spirit, but believers” someone who truly understood what the Church is, couldn’t make such a statement..hint, it’s not a building.
again, the problem is the “two baptism” people start with a false teaching unknown to the Apostles, unknown to the Church Fathers, and unknown to anyone until the 16th century. then, they read every verse to try and fit this heresy. they can’t explain why Jesus commanded baptism, they can’t explain what baptism is for and they can’t explain why we can’t find anyone holding this belief before the 16th century.
“1. the versions cited still say be baptized for the remission of sins.”
And that can mean baptized TO be forgiven, or baptized BECAUSE you have been forgiven, and the Greek makes that even clearer.
“2. paul did not receive the Holy Spirit from laying on hands, read Acts 22.”
In Acts we read: “17So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. “
Regaining sight and being filled is linked in verse 17. In verse 18, he immediately regained his sight. Only then was he baptized - rather like the baptism of the Holy Spirit preceding the water baptism of Cornelius in the next chapter.
Acts 22 says, “16And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
If you consider that sequential, then you have someone baptized BEFORE they call on the name of Jesus. But of course, Paul was being told to do ALL of those things at once. But we also know, from Acts 9, that the scales had already fallen from his eyes PRIOR to his being baptized.
“3. “receive baptism as an expressive act of washing away your sins” the Bible does not use the word “expressive” at all in Acts”
In Acts, it is obvious that we must be baptized in the Holy Spirit - the baptism Jesus gives. In 1 Cor 12, it is obvious we are baptized in the Spirit, drinking of one Spirit, into the one body.
“4. the Philippian jailer being told believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved...why? because anyone who truly believes in Jesus will be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.”
You mean like the thief on the cross was? Even the Catholic Church allows intent to follow Christ as sufficient. If Catholics TRULY believed in baptismal regeneration, they would baptize all converts IMMEDIATELY. Indeed, they would baptize adults BEFORE belief, so they person could be born again and understand the things of God.
But if water baptism was required for the forgiveness of sins, no one would be forced to wait weeks and months, lest a car crash condemn them to hell forever!
What is critical is believing - try reading John 3: “18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Yes, one who believes would then, given the chance, follow with baptism, prayer, giving to the poor, etc - lots of good things will follow. And being a Baptist, I believe in baptizing right away rather than waiting. But Jesus is explicit - it is by receiving him and believing in his name (”12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”) that we are born again. As John puts it later: “...these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
By believing you may have life in his name, not by being baptized in his name you will receive life.
“again, the problem is the “two baptism” people start with a false teaching unknown to the Apostles, unknown to the Church Fathers, and unknown to anyone until the 16th century. then, they read every verse to try and fit this heresy. “
Hate to break it to you, but the word of God explicitly teaches two baptisms - water, and Spirit. This is not open to discussion: “11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
Water baptism is undoubtedly taught, but so is the baptism of the Spirit, and they do not occur at the same time - ask Peter if you doubt me: “Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
It is sin to hold the teachings of ‘church fathers’ - and I’ve read enough of them to know how wacky many were - above the God-breathed scripture.