Which utterly fails to establish the contention at hand, that baptism is essential for the washing of regeneration, "that water baptism in the name of Jesus was for the remission of sins" as you persist in trying to justify, thus damning Abraham himself and all OT souls that did not pass thru the Red Sea, as well as all after that who believed as Cornelius and company until they were baptized - despite the Holy Spirit clearly testifying that God had already purified their heart by faith BEFORE baptist.
Moreover, as expressed and ignored, based upon your reasoning since the Lord Jesus commanded baptism then that is essential for the remission of sins, then it follows that since the Lord likewise commanded "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," (Matthew 28:20) then all such is necessary for the remission of sins. Instead, what is essential in effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God and Lord of all, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39) Glory and thanks be to God.
Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 was as the Lord Jesus instructed.
Instead, as was Peter command to "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," but as He so often expressed, it is effectual faith that obtains promises and forgiveness.
And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. (Luke 7:48-50)
And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. (Luke 18:42)
And which faith is first to be formally shown in baptism, and which signifies faith. And since thus, as expressed, to effectually believe means to obey, and to obey evidences faith (all that we do manifests what we truly believe, at least at the moment), then Peter's command in Acts 2:38 3,000 convicted souls in desperate quest for salvation was not to repeat a prayer, but to express faith in body language, but actually doing what signifies faith.
Which is consistent with,
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:8-10) True faith in the heart justifies, and such faith is confirmed as salvific by obedience, which confession is in word and in deed. Thus at any point, what is necessary is effectual faith, which is what born again Cornelius and his household had and thus were baptized. testifying to this faith, as cause and effect.
Like as with forgiveness and healing, as shown,
Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee [cause]; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk [effect]? (Mark 2:9)
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the coverts in Antioch were baptized per the Lord’s command. Just as Peter had no choice with Cornelius and his household. They HAD to be baptized. More on Acts 10.
More sophistry, for Peter certainly did not have to command Cornelius and his household to be baptized for the remission of sins, since they ALREADY had realized this, as is plainly shown. As for Peter had no choice, Peter had no choice but to obey all the Lord's commands, which includes baptism, but which is NOT what Peter preached in order to receive remission of sins, which instead was,
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
Thus it remains that you are contradicting the clear testimony of Peter, that prior to baptism, God gave these souls the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto the apostles; purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9) Thus it is FAITH that obtains remission of sins, and it is FAITH that is imputed for righteousness
Instead of admitting this, you resort to another failing rebuttal:
It was a supernatural effort by the Lord (vision x3, and telling Peter that he was sending men to fetch him) to get Peter to go to the Gentiles. Those “of the circumcision which believed”, that went with him, hadn’t received any signs from God. Therefore, I believe those fellows would have protested baptizing Gentiles. But God pouring out his Spirit confirmed to those Jews that the Gentiles were included in this grace. Therefore, the command by Peter to baptize them.
Think about what you are arguing: Which is that God pouring out his Spirit confirmed to those Jews - and you - that the Gentiles received the "washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5) before baptism, "purifying their hearts by faith," contrary to your major premise!
Thus your only recourse is to an exception clause which still contradicts you.
Is water baptism mentioned in Acts 15? No. The argument was about circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
Yes, yet Peter's testimony was that "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)
Paul showed up at Ephesus, (Acts 19:1-7), and after discovering that 12 disciples of John the baptist hadn’t received the Holy Ghost, he re-baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Yes, as they should be, as this is synonymous with believing. But it is the faith behind and expressed in baptism that purifies the heart.
Paul testified to the Jews of his conversion, specifically mentioning Ananias’ command for him to be baptized: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16Yes indeed, which is consistent with believing, and is actually normatively to be synonymous with conversion, presuming the convert understands what it means, and water and means to do so is available at the time.
Philip knew that souls had to believe AND be baptized (Mark 16:16), as seen in Samaria (Acts 8:12, 13), and the eunuch’s conversion (Acts 8:35-39).
Which has never been the issue here, versus baptism being the means of or essential for the remission of sins.
The passover in Egypt is clearly a type of Christ. And the way of departure by the Israelites was also God ordained, showing a type of the church (Acts 7:38): they turned to follow God (repentance), and were ALL baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1Cor. 10:1, 2).
You already tried this, remember? Only the original Hebrews of the Exodus went thru the sea, not those born after that, nor Abraham or those before it.
I am glad if you are believer, and baptism is wrongly marginalized (and I have not emphasized as much as it should be), but you are almost making a god out of baptism.
That said, this takes up hours of my time with my stiff arthritic typo-fingers, and I have more to do.
.
**Which utterly fails to establish the contention at hand, that baptism is essential for the washing of regeneration, “that water baptism in the name of Jesus was for the remission of sins” as you persist in trying to justify, thus damning Abraham himself and all OT souls that did not pass thru the Red Sea,**
The Passover in Egypt (widely accepted as a type and shadow Jesus Christ’s sacrifice) had never happened before. It broke the hopeless case of a people in bondage. But they had to leave that world of sin and come to God... his way. In 1 Cor. 10:1,2 Paul shows the subsequent departure from Egypt to be a type and shadow of the church (baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; which is where Israel passed through in order to be completely free from Egypt).
Stephen referred to Moses (a type of Christ), and the Israelites, as the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:37,38).
Our souls live in physical bodies in a physical world. Physical action proves faith, even if it’s a man secured to a cross asking Jesus for forgiveness. (Jesus had not died and rose again, therefore the new covenant was not yet in effect.) Hebrews 11 shows examples of faith, and every one of those heros had to do something physical to prove their faith.
Men tore open a roof to lower their crippled friend in hopes that Jesus would heal him. “When Jesus SAW their faith...” (Mark 2:5), we can note his not commending their faith until that point.
That miracle is also a great shadow of rebirth: The man was ‘buried’ by being lowered into the house. Who was down there? Jesus (we are buried with him in baptism). The man was forgiven of sins at that point, and received healing (walking in newness of life: his ‘resurrection).
Likewise with the centurion who made an effort to contact Jesus in hopes his servant could be healed. After Jesus makes his way toward the centurion’s home, and hears the message of his not needing to come into the house, Jesus announces that the man has greater faith than anyone in Israel.
Also the woman that poured ointment on Jesus feet was commended of her faith after the fact.
Abraham? When was he finally commended for his faith? Not at his departure point of Haran. No, it was after traveling several hundred miles (the old fashioned way), also building three altars and offering sacrifices on them. In Gen. 15, we read of the LORD telling Abram to look up to heaven and count stars. Do you think Abram didn’t so much as look? Then, in verse 6, God commends him for his faith.
And the (almost) sacrifice of Isaac, where Abram is stopped at the point of grabbing his knife, and the LORD then says “...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” (Gen. 22:12)
Cornelius was commended for his faith (prayers and alms) before being instructed to send for Peter, who upon arriving, knows that Cornelius has surely heard of Jesus (Acts 10:37,38). Since they were promptly baptized immediately after receiving the Holy Ghost, it shows that as Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, John 20:23, and Acts 2:38 all indicate water baptism to be part of the water and Spirit rebirth (John 3:5); that saving faith requires repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus. God gives the Holy Ghost.
It is simply a fact that it wasn’t until AFTER Jesus died and rose again that water baptism was commanded for remission of sins.
Otherwise, why all the examples of its urgency in Acts? And why the wording by Paul: “buried with him in baptism”? Simple. If you are ‘buried with him’, his blood is there too.
If it is for remission of sins, but denied to be so by many, then isn’t that (at minimum) a lack of faith?