***Romans 6 details how baptism is required to join in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.***
Like all immersionists they see the word “baptism” and think water.
Read Romans 6 carefully;
Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized INTO Christ were baptized INTO his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism INTO DEATH: 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.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection.
***Now pay attention!****
Knowing this that our old man IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should no longer serve sin.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ, never the less I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...
Ever notice how Paul references the Crucifiction of Christ? Did you ever notice that Paul also said, concerning water baptism, I Cor 1:14, I THANK GOD that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I baptized in my own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas, besides, I KNOW NOT WHETHER I BAPTIZED ANY OTHER.
FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL....
If water baptism were so important why did God not include that in Paul’s commission? Paul did baptize but you can see he didn’t seem to keep too much track of it.
There are mentions of water baptism and baptism INTO Christ. Can you discern the difference?
Good discussion on baptism from the ancient Greeks here.
http://www.ucmi.org/ucmi/chap11.htm
You lecture me on the meaning of baptism somehow NOT being an immersion in water, then you link to a page that lays out that baptism is clearly immersion in water.
("Baptism as was commonly practiced in the New Testament church was immersion baptism. The word "baptism" comes from the Greek word "baptizo" which means to dip.")
You are right that Paul did not make it his concern to 'close' the deal with baptism. His primary calling was to preach the gospel. Even in Acts 19, it appears he simply ordered that they be re-baptized, he doesn't appear to have done the act.
You have yet to deal with any of my questions, but I'll press on anyway, like Don Quixote.
Since you will not answer whether or not baptism is necessary, riddle me this; Why did Paul re-baptize those BELIEVERS in Acts 19?
Seems odd, doesn't it? If baptism is simply an outward sign to onlookers, why would a man of Paul's understanding insist that they be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Let's think *Consistent* here