"Is Peter speaking of a water baptism here? I don't think so. Water baptism doesn't take away sins. I think he is using the term figuratively. What does it mean to be baptized in the name of Jesus?"

That sounds like a kind of special pleading to me. Three verses later it says

How could this not be water baptism?

What would it mean if, in fact, Peter really does mean "be baptized (with water)...for (i.e., "into/unto") the remission of sins" here, or if Acts 22:16 really is talking about having one's sins washed away through baptism, or if 1 Peter 3:18-22 really is saying that "baptism...now saves you"? From my own experience, I can say that the more carefully I considered these and other related verses the more convincing a "sacramental" interpretation of them became and the less convincing the Baptist-type interpretations became.

But, to say that Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:18-22, etc. are not referring to the water baptism that we all receive sure sounds like special pleading (that is, an attempt to avoid the sacramental implications of these verses). But, if you've blogged before about your interpretation or wish now to explain your view further, I'd certainly be glad to read what you have to say.

Zach, I found another defender of the unknown apostle. (lol!)

"After the Ascension of Our Lord, His followers at Jerusalem chose a replacement for Judas. The man chosen was Matthias, "and he was numbered with the Eleven." Apart from the information given in the first chapter of Acts, nothing is known of him. It would be a mistake to conclude from this that he was a failure and a bad choice as an apostle. We know as much as we do about Peter and Paul because Luke (a travelling companion of Paul) wrote extensively about them. About most of the other apostles (those belonging to the original twelve and later ones like Matthias) we know little after Pentecost on an individual basis." http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/109.html

Zach, since I have opportunity, I'll respond now point-by-point. 

Regarding Acts 2:38: I didn't leave out that we are to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" or that with baptism we receive the Holy Spirit; I talked about these things in the same post, but at some point after my initial comment about the verse. I believe that to be baptized "in" or "into" or "upon" the "name of Jesus Christ" is to be water baptized with the triune name of God being spoken over the person and the water, and that this is what Jesus is referring to in Matthew 28:18-20 when He says "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." I believe that the Holy Spirit is "with" the water in a manner described not only in Acts 2:38 but also alluded to in John 3:3-5 ("born of water and the Spirit"). I will add here that the relationship of the gift of the Spirit to the baptismal water is a little complicated in the Book of Acts: in Acts 8:4-25 many believed and were baptized, yet it was a little later (with the laying on of the apostle's hands) that they received the Spirit; in Acts 10:44-48 the listeners received the Spirit, and when Peter saw this he then had them baptized; in Acts 19:1-7 the disciples who had only been baptized with John's baptism were baptized in Jesus' name and then received the Spirit with the laying on of Paul's hands. But, in all of these cases the Spirit and the water "go together." 

Regarding Acts 22:16, you said "I would say again that the water is not efficacious but the calling on the name of Jesus is." But, earlier you said "I don't believe there is anything we can do to receive grace." These two statements, taken together, do not seem to compute. How is it that there is nothing that we can do to receive grace, yet our calling on the name of Jesus is "efficacious"?

Regarding 1 Peter 3:18-22,  the verses include "...when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you..." The word "corresponds" is sometimes translated "antitype"---a near transliteration of the Greek word "antitupos". The idea in these verses, I believe, is that there is a "type"/"antitype" connection between the Great Flood and baptism. But, your reading seems confused, because you seem to be trying to say that "baptism" in v. 21 both "is" Jesus' death (when you quoted v. 18) as well as "corresponds" to Jesus' death.

Then, you say "You mention that we have one baptism. I ask you what is that baptism? Is it the baptism of John with water or is it the baptism of Jesus by the Spirit? As I said earlier, I do believe in baptismal regeneration, but not that of the water. I believe in the efficacious baptism that Jesus underwent for me in the cross, thereby washing away my sins "once for all", and in that baptism He has given me His spirit, because if I have died in Him, it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me." I'm not sure what you're saying when you say "baptism of Jesus by the Spirit." On the one hand, you seem to be saying that baptism is Jesus' death on the cross. Yet, on the other hand, you seem to be saying that baptism is being given the Spirit at conversion (something that has taken place nearly 2000 years after Jesus' death on the cross). Your later statement about the Philippian jailer---"As for the Phillipian jailer, I honestly had forgotten about him :-) However it does not say that he was baptised in water, although it does not say he wasn't either."---continues to leave me wondering what you think "baptism" is in various verses.

How about this: why don't you tell me what "baptism"/"baptized"/"baptizing" refers to in Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12-17, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 16:29-34, Acts 19:1-7, Romans 6:1-4? You don't need to argue for your positions, necessarily---for each of these passages, you could just tell me whether you think a given instance of one of these words is referring to Jesus' death, water baptism, Spirit baptism or perhaps something else. For instance, what do you think it means when it says that the Philippian jailer was "baptized"? This may help me to understand your views better.

We treat of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is achieved and won. Second, how it is distributed and given to us. Christ has achieved it on the cross, it is true. But he has not distributed or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the supper or sacrament. There he has distributed and given it through the Word, as also in the gospel, where it is preached. He has won it once for all on the cross. But the distribution takes place continuously, before and after, from the beginning to the end of the world. For inasmuch as he had determined once to achieve it, it made no difference to him whether he distributed it before or after….

[So] if now I seek the forgiveness of sins, I do not run to the cross, for I will not find it given there. Nor must I hold to the suffering of Christ, as Dr. Karlstadt trifles, in knowledge or remembrance, for I will not find it there either. But I will find in the sacrament or gospel the word which distributes, presents, offers, and gives to me that forgiveness which was won on the cross.

(LW 40.213-214), quoted here

In summary, Jesus "won" forgiveness once for all, and this is "distributed" through the preaching of the Gospel and the sacraments (including baptism).

Finally, I'll include this link to Luther's Large Catechism's discussion of baptism, which is part of the official Lutheran confessions. It's a great treatment of the topic, and it is well worth considering by all Christians (I have alluded to a few of its points in my posts here).

John 4:2 could mean that Jesus never baptized anyone, as Zach said, although perhaps it could simply mean that people other than Jesus were the ones who did the baptizing as Jesus and His first disciples made yet more disciples. In other words, I'm not sure that the grammar absolutely rules out Jesus Himself baptizing some group of disciples (e.g., the original 12) very early on and then those disciples baptizing the rest. But, it is true that there is no explicit record of Jesus baptizing anyone in particular, and He may never have baptized anyone.

Are we just batting around questions of fact, or is this part of our discussion inching towards a particular theological point?

Sure, Norm. Peter, who was one of the closest to Jesus, said

Alternatively, we could consider Jesus' own words:

But, I'm not sure what the lack of an explicit record of when certain disciples might have baptized could possibly show. What do you think?

I wasn't looking for specific disciples.  I was looking for record of even one.  I don't know that it proves anything at all.  I was just working on working out whether it was symbolic or just based on tradition (the thought of Peter and unclean food).  The other thought that my brain fights with is whether John was baptizing in Jesus's name (it's one of those moments my linear brain has troubles with)

Understand this is not to win an argument with anyone.  This is just something I've been thinking about recently.  Not looking to step on anyones toes. ;)

I've reread this (commenting after waking up probably wasn't the best way to go).

Much of the discussion that was going through my head was answered in those comments.  Tradition would equate to whether this was a Jewish thing or a Lutheran thing.  I use Lutheran since in another post I was commenting on infant baptism (and well I grew up in a Lutheran church so that's what I'm familiar with).

And symbolic, I was referring to whether it was representative only.  The public show of surrender. 

I was referring to John the Baptist btw. 

I have more I want to add, but now isn't the best time (as I'm ignoring the family to type this and that probably isn't the best idea). 

I don't have enough time to respond point-for-point as I would like, but I just wanted to mention that I find it a stretch to find water baptism mentioned in John 3:5, "born of water and the Spirit."  The explanation of verse 5 is in verse 6, as they parallel each other: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."  "Born of water" is synonymous with being born "to flesh."  It refers to the natural, physical birth.  (Maybe this is because the body is mostly water or because water is so critical to the sustenance of natural life?)  While the Spirit literally "gives birth to spirit" and the flesh literally "gives birth to flesh," plain ol' water never "gives birth to water."  A given amount of water never reproduces more water, nor does one become more water-y when one is baptized. 
Yeah, I ramble.  I just mean to say that I don't get that interpretation, though I know of at least one denomination that holds to it. 

Alright this may be a bit of rambling, but here I go anyways.

This is truly the thing I've been beating my head on the last month or so.  But I want to be clear up front.  I heard someone say that there is a new movement where the questions are more important than the answer.  I don't believe that.  So I apologize in advance for the unanswered questions I'm about to ask.

I knew there was something I was forgetting with "born of water", so I really appreciate Dave's comments.  I knew there was something describing our first birth and the contrasting to the second.  My brain needed the nudge (and actually what you said was more than a nudge ;) )

I've also heard it said that anything that adds to what we have to do to be saved through Christ is the first step towards a cult.  Christ should be enough.

So what about baptism both through water and the Spirit and where does it fit in with Christ dying on the cross.

As mentioned over here I found myself stubbing my toe on the order of what happened in Acts  2 earlier this month.  I mean it seems as though they were filled with the Spirit first and then they believed in Jesus.  Honestly I had never even separated the two things before.  And then to boot (and this could really be read either way) there were those who were filled with the Spirit who didn't believe.  That shouldn't surprise me, however just given the atmosphere, you would think it would be hard to dismiss.  And to boot it said they were religious folk to begin with (again assuming but you would think they were Jews) which would mean they should have understood even better. 

So when I asked about Jesus's followers I was asking trying to follow the order here.  It seems the Spirit made it's first appearance to the disciples when it showed up in Chapter 2 as well.

John also seemed to be baptizing not IN Jesus, but for repentence of sins.  Hence the question about symbolic.

There are also numerous places in the Gospels where people just believed and Jesus didn't tell them to go off and get baptized.  Now again the non existance of it doesn't prove anything, but on the other hand if there was something other than symbolism you would think he would mention it to a new believer wouldn't he?   Now I will admit that I believe God numbers the days of our lives and so it may have been in the plans for all of those to be baptized.

Which brings us to the thief on the cross.  There does not appear to be any evidence that he was filled with the Spirit OR baptized.  The only thing that happened was that he believed in Jesus.  Given the short time he had left maybe he didn't need the Helper? 

So now I'm left with the Spirit and baptism of water.  Neither of which seem to be necessary for salvation, but both of which I seem to want.  And definitely neither of which I want to dismiss outright.

I believe that Dave and Norm have got the parallelism incorrect. Verse 3 says "unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God," and verse 5 says "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." "See the kingdom" parallels "enter the kingdom," and "born anew" (sometimes translated "born again" or "born from above") parallels "born of water and the Spirit."

Furthermore, the Greek underlying the phrase "born of water and the Spirit" is "gennethei ex hudatos kai pneumatos." "Gennethei"="generated," "ex"="out of," "hudatos"="water," "kai"="and" and "pneumatos"="spirit;" the two nouns ("water" and "Spirit") are associated with the one preposition ("out of"). This naturally leads to the reading that these two elements are components of one birth (i.e., the new birth).

If verse 5 had said something like "born out of water and out of the Spirit" (i.e., had two prepositions), then a parallel with v. 6 ("That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit") would be much more tenable. But, it does not. So, based upon both the grammar of v. 5 as well as its parallelism with v. 3, I conclude that being "born again/born from above" means being "born of water and the Spirit."

I came to this conclusion a few years ago. So, I was heartened a couple of years later to read D.A. Carson's book "Exegetical Fallacies," which includes a discussion of this very verse as an illustration of one of his own previous exegetical fallacies. Carson says that early on he rejected a sacramental view of this verse (as far as I know he still does), a symbolic view of "water" (e.g., "water"=the Word of God) and the view that "water" is the amniotic fluid present in fleshly birth. "With some reluctance," he says, he came to the view that "water" is a euphemism for "semen" and that being "born of water" refers to being "begotten of water [=semen]." He then goes on to say that he later had a graduate student who convinced him otherwise: he came around to the view that "born of water and the Spirit" refers to one birth (he notes the single preposition), that this parallels v. 3, etc. Carson further notes the background passage Ezekiel 36:25-27, which links together water and the Spirit in God's saving actions, as something that Nicodemus should have understood.

Now, it is true that this verse does not explicitly mention baptism. However, baptism is not foreign to the context of the particular conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, nor is it foreign to the rest of the book of John. John the Baptist's baptismal ministry had already been discussed in chapter 1, and immediately after the account of Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus it says

Zak,

Yes and no (and sorry for the delay in getting back to this.  It's been a busy week)

Whenever I have read Acts 2 before I have always pictured it this way.

The disciples and other followers are sitting in the upper room.  The Holy Spirit comes in with a whoosh.  However the Holy Spirit doesn't stop there.  It rushes out into the courtyard and fills the 3000 (or so) Jews as well who are all now able to talk to each other in their own language.

As I saw that's how I have always read it in the past.  That's why I said what I did about the Holy Spirit entering and then they became believers.  That said things change.  Usually it's the individual.  I went back and reread that last weekend (after making the comment above) and realized when I tried putting the sequence in order I was off.  It doesn't say that the Jews were talking to each other.  It says they were listening to the followers.  And then 3000 or so became believers.

I'm always floored by those moments when things are "revealed" and perceptions change.  So yes I can explain what I was thinking.  However I think now that I was wrong so we're not going too far down that path. 

JAM, I read 3:3 - 3:6 and still hold to what I said.  If 3:6 had said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the water and the spirit is spirit" I think the argument would hold merit.  However sandwiched on both sides of the verse which you take to mean one thing are statements that compare and contrast two things.  I also think that the "out of" argument would make more sense if applied towards the "one" rather than "one birth".  Visual aid:  This candy is made out of peanut butter and chocolate.

Here's a question that came up this week, that I had been thinking of and as I look back over this conversation I don't see answered.  As far as I know the Jews didn't have baptism as a traditoin, right?  So how did John convince all of these people that they needed to get baptized?  I don't know if that question makes sense.  If it doesn't, let me know.

Yes I believe that Jesus was tempted because I do believe He was fully man at that point.  I mean if he wasn't, could He have died and been resurrected?

The trinity is one of those fun things to figure out.  If He had the Father's knowledge isn't this Jesus lying?

As for the same will, if they were one and the same at that point, Why did He say Father, Father, why have YOU forsaken me?  What was this demonstrating?  Or if they all are embodied in one thing, why did Jesus have to leave so the Helper could come?

I think there are distinct roles in the Trinity.  There appears to be distinct knowledge (which really messes with your head if you're like me and believe God knows everything.  Figure out how that works.  Actually I think the Father does know all for the record) 

I do believe a lot of what He does is for demonstration's sake though.

Back to the baptism stuff for a moment.   Since I haven't said it here but only elsewhere, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be baptized.  I'm only saying that it does not appear necessary.  And disagreeing on what certain things appear to say (imo).