I respectfully and with all due respect disagree.
Baptism is a "work/action" done by men.
Ephesians 2:8-9......
""For
by grace you have been
saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
{9}
not of
works, lest anyone should boast. "
John 6:53 is understood as a "picture" and is not a literal event. Jesus’ graphic imagery about eating His flesh and drinking His blood is indeed puzzling at first. Context will help us understand what He is saying.
The day before He said John 6:53, Context tells us that the same multitudes He feed with the 5000 fish continued to follow Him, seeking another meal. Jesus pointed out their short-sightedness: they were only seeking physical bread, but there was something more important: “Food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (verse 27).
At this point, Jesus attempts to turn their perspective away from physical sustenance to their true need, which was spiritual.
Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (
John 6:35, 48, 51).
Some people believe that the bread and wine of communion are somehow transformed into Jesus’ actual flesh and blood, or that Jesus somehow imbues these substances with His real presence. These ideas, called "Transubstantiation (professed by the Catholic and Orthodox churches) and consubstantiation (held by some Lutherans), ignore Jesus’ statement that........
“the flesh counts for nothing” in John 6:63. The majority of Protestants understand that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His flesh and blood and hold that the bread and wine are symbolic of the spiritual bond created with Christ through faith.
Mark 16:16 verse distinguishes between belief and salvation, and lack of belief and condemnation. The first half of the verse emphasizes belief as the means of salvation. The public expression of that belief is baptism. The second half of the verse clearly notes "whoever does not believe will be condemned." The contrast is clearly between belief and lack of belief, not between baptism and condemnation.
John 3:5 does not require baptism as the water in that Scripture is about the 1st birth, physically through the amniotic fluid of the mother.
Acts 2:38-41.....the misunderstanding here comes from the original language and the meaning of the Greek word "
eis."
The problem centers around the Greek word "eis " that is translated “for” in this passage.
The meanings of the Greek word
eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition
eis in
Acts 2:38 s
hould be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of"!
Acts 22:16 is the Greek aorist participle, "
epikalesamenos," translated "calling on His name" refers to action that is before that of the main verb, "be baptized." What that means then in the Original is Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle is to be translated "having called on His name". That means 1st callig on Christ for the remission of sin and 2nd, following in believers baptism.
Now my dear friend, I do not post these teachings on the Scriptures to argue your belief in them. Your beliefs are yours and I do not challenge them. I only do this in order to give you the opportunity to read the explanations of each one, do the study for yourself so the you may be totally informed.
