I had not visited this site in a while, and ran upon it, along with our correspondence, recently. I noticed that your last comment has an interesting conclusion, and I quote "You claim that the Philippian jailer was not baptized". This claim never was, nor ever has been made by me. I conclude that he was never commanded to be baptized "in order to be saved". This is the literal conclusion of the Bible, and all of the New Testament; that not one unsaved Gentile was ever commanded to be baptized in order to receive remission of sins. Quite the contrary; this person was commanded to believe on the Lord in order to be saved, and to reach any other conclusion than this is to temporarily and necessarily abandon patternism theology in favor of baptismal remission theology. The two cannot be reconciled in this instance. This is why the doctrine of baptismal remission being imposed upon lost Gentiles today is an exercise in denominational traditions of men, and not the clear literal teaching of the Bible rightly divided. My charge is simple; in order to be a consistent patternist, then you must conclude , as the Bible does, that no lost Gentile was ever commanded by a New Testament preacher to be baptized for( in order to receive ) the remission of sins, and therefore cannot be imposed on this same group of people today. Paul was a preacher sent to the Gentiles, and this agrees with His assertion that "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel "( I Corinthians 1:17 ).
Salvation does not change by nationality. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
- Does true faith mean the command to be baptized does not save a person?
- Do you have to know that baptism is for the remission of sins in order to be saved?
- Answering Arguments Against Baptism
- Doesn't the Bible teach that you can be saved without baptism?
- How can baptism save?
Thank you for referring me to the articles concerning baptism. I will look at them upon my convienance. My question, however, is very specific, and deserves a specific answer. If we are to follow a pattern found in Scripture, where is the pattern found that a lost Gentile is commanded to be baptized in order to be saved? I have not found one example. Since church of Christ apologists proclaim the C.E.N.I. hermeneutic to determine proper doctrine, this particular doctrine should easily be shown to be biblically sound using this hermeneutic. Since you referred me to some of your articles, I will refer you to one of my articles that demonstrates, using this hermeneutic, that baptismal remission cannot be imposed upon lost Gentiles today.
You are creating a false limitation, narrowing down what you consider acceptable answers to then claim that no verse matches your imaginary criteria. Jews and Greeks are saved in the same manner. The verse I gave shows that. There if faith is necessary for the Jew, then it is necessary for the Gentile as well. Since baptism was command of the Jews it was also commanded of the Gentiles (Acts 10:48). If the Jews were told that baptism is for the remission of sins, then that is true for the Gentile as well.
"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen" (Matthew 28:18-20).
"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21).
"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin" (Romans 6:3-7 -- The church in Rome was composed of both Jews and Gentiles).
"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28).
"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Colossians 2:11-13 -- the passage was directed to Gentiles who had become Christians).
Technically, since you reject the idea that authority is established by God's commands, the approved examples found in the Scriptures, and the necessary inferences drawn from the Scriptures, you cannot hold another to a standard you do not accept. That is because if you start with a false premise then you cannot establish truth. You are claiming the premise is false but then try to claim the conclusion is false using that premise. I, on the other hand, can use commands, examples, and inferences to establish my points because I do accept the truth of this premise (see: God's Authority). Sorry, but you are being illogical as well as not paying attention to what the Scriptures teach.