You make condescending comments (like some of the ones below in asterisks), and believe you have proved your case, therefore you choose to end this debate. That’s fine (I’m a pretty patient and longsuffering guy), but I am going to TRY to briefly answer some of that post. Afterward, I will possibly post to myself on this thread, on this issue (but not using any of your wording), since I am aware that other viewers are maybe still lurking.
**This is more desperation**
So you don’t believe the miracle of the palsied man to have any symbolism of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which the new birth shows as a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection (which happens while the convert is alive in the flesh, responding according to the preacher sent by God).
**Yet you persist with the lie that baptism was commanded for - in order to obtain remission of sins,**
Jesus declared to the disciples that THEY would be remitting sins. Therefore, whosoever sins they remit are surely remitted in heaven. Peter said, when speaking of Noah and the flood, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” 1 Peter 3:21
What gives the good conscience? Knowing your sins are washed away, from obeying “from the heart that form of doctrine” one receives from God-ordained ministers; not doing it insincerely, (yet foolish people do so). And by doing so, “being then made free from sin...” Who gave us that doctrine? Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, and sent men out to institute it. (quote clips from Rom. 6:17,18)
**What?! Men whose heart was already purified by faith, who were already regenerated BEFORE baptism,**
The last half of that sentence is your opinion. The testimony from Peter you refer to was made some time after those Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost and had been water “baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:47,48). So yes, they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered to them. Do you think Peter didn’t explain to Cornelius and household WHY they were being baptized? I’m rather confident he didn’t say this....
**Baptism as commanded as act signifying faith and confirmatory of and normally concomitant with it**
Chapter and verse please (if you reply).
**Wrong: By counting his faith for righteousness then God was truly commending for his faith:**
And Abraham’s faith was based on his obedience (Heb. 11:8). He had to leave Haran in order to receive those promises.
Hebrews 11:1,2 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders received a good report.”
Neither you or I can see the ‘heart’. It’s honestly meeting the requirements (whatever they may be) to receive those things hoped for, that is the evidence of faith in the unseen God.
**...the incarnated physicality of Christ (versus mere appearance) which the water of birth testifies to...**
That’s private interpretation. John says nothing about water when comparing physical birth with spiritual in John 1:13. Also, to make that case, it would help offset John 1:13 if Jesus had said in 3:6 that “That which is born of water is flesh...”, but he didn’t.
I close with Jonah, the type and shadow of death, burial, and resurrection mentioned by Jesus.
Jonah was a sinner who had rebelled against God. He knew he had sinned, admitted his guilty condition, and men threw him into the sea (you don’t bury or baptize yourself). In his watery grave (kept alive by the whale), his sin was forgiven, and he was released from that prison a new man, ready to do the will of God with vigor (Yes, he still had a chip on his shoulder about the Ninevites, but God opened his eyes to that wrong thinking.)
How are such not warranted in the light of your utter refusal to admit what is plainly shown to you, and even blatant contradicting the manifest fact that Cornelius and household were indeed forgiven and regenerated, realizing the washing of regeneration, having their heart already purified by faith, "who were already regenerated BEFORE baptism," yet which you assert:
The last half of that sentence is your opinion. The testimony from Peter you refer to was made some time after those Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost and had been water “baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:47, 48).
Which is NOT my opinion since The testimony from Peter was NOT made some time after those Gentiles had been water “baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:47, 48), but before they were, referring to the event that already occurred, as the very verses you reference plainly state:
Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Peter is clearly referring to an event which ALREADY took place:
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:44-48)
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. (Acts 11:15)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)Therefore you are blatantly changing what Peter said, which is typical of cults, in which Scripture must be compelled to support their distinctive errors. As in the next example as well:
And Abraham’s faith was based on his obedience (Heb. 11:8). He had to leave Haran in order to receive those promises.
Meaning that he had to truly believe, which is what and why he was accounted as righteous, and this as said, you are not to confuse the cause with the effect.
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6)
Neither you or I can see the ‘heart’. It’s honestly meeting the requirements (whatever they may be) to receive those things hoped for, that is the evidence of faith in the unseen God.
What confusion. It does not matter that neither you or I can see the heart in regard to what God does, for since He does, "God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost. Stop confusing the effect of faith with being the actual cause of justification.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Romans 4:2-3)
As regards the Law, that represents all systems of justification on the basis of the merit of works:
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (Galatians 3:21)
So you don’t believe the miracle of the palsied man to have any symbolism of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which the new birth shows as a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection (which happens while the convert is alive in the flesh, responding according to the preacher sent by God).
Being let down into the house as analogous to baptism obtaining forgiveness by proxy faith could be used by Catholics to support infant baptismal regeneration by proxy faith, but i see it as relating to James 5:14-15, the requirement for baptism is that of whole-hearted repentant faith. (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37).
In response to the faith of intercessors, the Lord has mercy on the man, forgiving as in removing his chastisement akin to James 5:14-15, likely for a sin of ignorance (since no confession was required), and the man was forgiven, and thus healed and walked, which is the only response by the man. He did not walk in order to be healed, but forgiven, healed and thus walked, and analogous with faith being the cause of obedience, which cause is not to be confused with the effect. "God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost as well as unto us."
Jesus declared to the disciples that THEY would be remitting sins.
Or retained. (Jn. 20:23) Which has application in the judicial context, as in Matthew 18:15-18 (cf. Dt. 17:8-13) as with civil powers, (Rm. 13:1-7) while spiritual loosing can be by believers in general in union and agreement with God and each other. (Matthew 18:19,20; cf. James 5:16) The relationship btwn forgiveness, chastisement even for sins of ignorance, and intercession by others is intriguing. See Confession of sins to Catholic priests as I incompletely see it.
What gives the good conscience? Knowing
Knowing you believed on the Lord, with obedience faith, which faith is what is imputed for righteousness, not the act itself. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received [already] the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) "purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9) But as said, the two normally go together, as do faith and works.
Jonah was a sinner who had rebelled against God. He knew he had sinned, admitted his guilty condition, and men threw him into the sea (you don’t bury or baptize yourself). In his watery grave (kept alive by the whale), his sin was forgiven
Which would support forced baptism. As you sure you are not a RC? If you are going to keep trying to make baptism essential for the forgiveness of sins by searching for every form of being let down or immersed in water than you need to be consistent. God forgave souls without being immersed or physically let down, while here it was the chastisement of Jonah being inside the belly of a big fish that wrought repentance, and thus forgiveness.
In closing, while baptism has come to be wrongly marginalized, you are wrong in making a ritual the means of regeneration, confusing the cause of justification, which is the faith which baptism is to confess, with being the means of it (though as said, sometimes is can be the occasion of it, in which a persons transit from head faith to the heart due to what baptism represents).
A false balance at best, while denying souls who believed Acts 10:43 were forgiven and regenerated before baptism is inexcusable, and some of your belief even dam souls who did believe and were baptized since they did not believe baptismal regeneration, which is a false gospel. May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Bye.