Water and Blood

[Tazman]

Briony-Gloriana,

What was the intent that you are sure of from the above post by myself and Mman?

Also, I am interested to know your thoughts on my other question:

If you don't believe Jesus' baptism is necessary then Jesus' death should be questioned too since He has the authority to forgive sins before dying. But He still chose to Die. Why?

Baptism Desire is not how I would define the Thief's conversion. Unless you mean he:

1. learned the truth
2. believed Jesus enough to repent
3. Asked forgiveness/mercy.

 

[Helen]

If you will forgive me for interrupting, forgiveness and atonement are very different things. Atonement is what Christ did on the cross. All our sins were paid for; He tasted death for every man. That was a legal thing. But forgiveness is a personal thing. That is why He told us that there was a sin which could not be forgiven. That is also why John tells us in his first epistle that if we sin and then confess (to HIM) that He is faithful and just to forgive our sins.

But atonement, the penalty for sin, has been taken care of, completed, on the cross. That is why Purgatory is heretical -- it is claiming that all is not paid for -- that Christ's work was insufficient.

 

[Melanie]

Originally posted by Tazman:
Briony-Gloriana,

What was the intent that you are sure of from the above post by myself and Mman?

Also, I am interested to know your thoughts on my other question:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If you don't believe Jesus' baptism is necessary then Jesus' death should be questioned too since He has the authority to forgive sins before dying. But He still chose to Die. Why?

Baptism Desire is not how I would define the Thief's conversion. Unless you mean he:

1. learned the truth
2. believed Jesus enough to repent
3. Asked forgiveness/mercy. </font>[/QUOTE]Baptism of desire is as you said the Thief received the grace to acknowledge Jesus as Divine and humbly begged to be remembered by Him, the thief acknowledges his unworthiness and yet Jesus crucified alongside him forgives him and rewards his belief.


My "thoughts" on the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.... I will have to come back to this one

Our divine Master did not need to die for us, but chose to because of the greatness of our Fall, nothing less could reinstate us, but because He so loved us He chose to do this (this is wonderous do you not agree). Afterall, the angels Fall was much greater and yet there was no repeal of the sentence meted out.
His dying for us was a free gift, our redemption was a free gift

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
Phew thank you Tazman, mman made it sound as if Our Lord could not read the dying thiefs heart and accept his baptism of desire, and by logical deduction that Jesus therefore had lost His Divinity.

I am sure that it was not the intent however.....

My point was that the thief lived under the old law, therefore, our redemption is different than his, because we live under the new covenant.

We must follow the instructions given under the new covenant. To go to an old covenant example as an example for justification is not valid.

Acts 2 is the first sermon following the death of Christ. Those who believed were cut to the heart and asked what they need to do. Peter's answer was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. To try and say the baptism is not for the remission of sins, because the thief on the cross (old law) was not baptized (we don't know if he was or wasn't, by the way, that information is not revealed and is total speculation) is not a valid reason.

 

[Melanie]

I agree mman that we must follow the New Covenant, as we most definitely come after these world changing events...the definition of that of course has caused so many factions of Christianity, but that also is part of God's great plan.....regrettably I am too small to begin to fathom why so I place my trust in Him.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
I agree mman that we must follow the New Covenant, as we most definitely come after these world changing events...the definition of that of course has caused so many factions of Christianity, but that also is part of God's great plan.....regrettably I am too small to begin to fathom why so I place my trust in Him.

I'm not sure I understand the depth of your comment, however I can see that you agree that we must follow the New Covenant.

Therefore, the example of the thief is not applicable to us today, since the New Covenant was not in effect when Jesus made that statement to him.

Jesus gave a great commission to His apostles to go to the whole world, all nations, and preach the good news about Him. Those who believe it and are baptized will be saved. Those who don't believe it will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

If Jesus really meant that the person who believes and is baptized will be saved, what other words could he have used to make the meaning more plain than what he actually said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16"?

If Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized", then He certainly made a confusing, out of order, not easily understood statement.

If Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" and someone twists it to mean, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized", then they are trying to change God's word to what they believe rather than to base their beliefs on God's word.

There is not one verse in scripture that negates Mark 16:16 or contradicts this verse. Truth lies in harmony with itself.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

The entire argument regarding the thief on the cross hinges upon a single proposition: that the thief lived under the Old Covenant, or some sort of inter-covenantial period (depending on whom you ask). However, the New Covenant began when Jesus died, which means that the thief DID live in the New Covenant, if only briefly. If the thief lived under the New Covenant and was saved without baptism, one of two things must ensue: either baptism was not required for salvation by the New Covenant, or Jesus' words violated His own Covenant. As God will not violate His own Covenant, I reject the latter possibility in favor of the former.

Michael

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:

Therefore, the example of the thief is not applicable to us today, since the New Covenant was not in effect when Jesus made that statement to him.

New Covenant or not, it doesn't matter. Jesus had already declared himself to be:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
He didn't say that baptism was the way; He said that He was the way. Covenants have nothing to do with salvation. Christ is the only way to heaven, and faith in Christ and his sacrifice is the only requirement--faith and faith alone.

Jesus gave a great commission to His apostles to go to the whole world, all nations, and preach the good news about Him. Those who believe it and are baptized will be saved. Those who don't believe it will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

Mark 16:15,16 is simply a summary of Mat.28:18-20 where the Great Commission is given in its entirety. Why are the COC adherents stuck on quoting the abbreviated verse instead of the full commission as given in Matthew. Is it, perhaps, because they can better twist it to fit into their own errant theology? Salvation is by faith and faith alone, as the Scriptures teach over and over again.

If Jesus really meant that the person who believes and is baptized will be saved, what other words could he have used to make the meaning more plain than what he actually said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16"?

The other words are recorded in full detail by Matthew. Mark recorded the same commission in an abbreviated form. Go to Matthew if you want the entire commission and more clarity as to its meaning.
He says to first Go.
Then to make disciples. Making disciples includes bringing a person to salvation. They must first be saved.
Thirdly, after they are saved, and discipled, then it is time for them to be baptized.
Fourthly, after they are baptized, they are to be taught some more: "teaching them all things whatsoever I have taught you."
--That is the order of the Great Commmission in its entirety. No need to use the abbreviated form in Mark 16 unless you have a thorough understanding of what Christ meant in Mat.28:19,20. It is the same commission.

If Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized", then He certainly made a confusing, out of order, not easily understood statement.

It is only confusing to those who afraid to compare Scripture to Scripture and do not want to "rightly divide the word of truth."

If Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" and someone twists it to mean, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized", then they are trying to change God's word to what they believe rather than to base their beliefs on God's word.

You are the one that is not studying the Word of God. That is a summary verse of Mat.28:19,20. There are hundreds of verses in the New and Old Testament that dogmatically statement that a man is saved by faith and faith alone. How can you take one verse and build a theology around this one verse and ignore the rest of the Bible? Fantastic!

There is not one verse in scripture that negates Mark 16:16 or contradicts this verse. Truth lies in harmony with itself.

Not one verse?
Is this why to this date you cannot answer 1Cor.1:17 where Paul completely distances himself from baptism.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul says that baptism has no part in being saved whatsoever; no part in preaching the gospel. In fact as far as preaching the gospel is concerned baptism is completely unimportant. He clearly says that God has not called him to baptize but to preach the gospel. How can a fact so obvious escape your attention? How do you account for such a serious discrepancy in your theology?
DHK

 

[Melanie]

I am sorry but I do not understand the problem regarding the good thief....the thief aknowledged Jesus as God and died.He would have joined the others awaiting the Redeemer (Jesus) to open the gates of Heaven which had been closed since the fall of Man. The Bosom of Abraham if you will and Jesus on rising from the dead descended into this place and these souls followed Jesus into heaven. The good thief by his act of faith was saved....

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Snitzelhoff:
The entire argument regarding the thief on the cross hinges upon a single proposition: that the thief lived under the Old Covenant, or some sort of inter-covenantial period (depending on whom you ask). However, the New Covenant began when Jesus died, which means that the thief DID live in the New Covenant , if only briefly. If the thief lived under the New Covenant and was saved without baptism, one of two things must ensue: either baptism was not required for salvation by the New Covenant, or Jesus' words violated His own Covenant. As God will not violate His own Covenant, I reject the latter possibility in favor of the former.

Michael

The thief died before Jesus

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Helen:
If you will forgive me for interrupting, forgiveness and atonement are very different things. Atonement is what Christ did on the cross.

You are forgiven sister

I appreciate your post. I would disagree with the above being two "very" different things. One works with the other. Its only natural.

Are you saying one is able to be atone for without being forgiven? hopefully not. OR one is able to be forgiven but not atoned for? Again hopefully not.

In either case, The thief was in Good standings to received paradise from the Lord while the old covenant was in place as did others though dead still waiting for the day of the Lord.

But atonement, the penalty for sin, has been taken care of, completed, on the cross.

We agree! TRUE!

That is why Purgatory is heretical -- it is claiming that all is not paid for -- that Christ's work was insufficient.

Oh my! We agree again.

In Christ

Taz

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The thief did not die before Jesus. They broke the legs of the two thiefs so they would die of asphyxiation, but when they went to Jesus' cross, He was already dead.

John 19:30-33 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:

My "thoughts" on the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.... I will have to come back to this one

I didn't ask the above, but an answer would be nice, unless I missed it.

Our divine Master did not need to die for us, but chose to because of the greatness of our Fall, nothing less could reinstate us, but because He so loved us He chose to do this (this is wonderous do you not agree). Afterall, the angels Fall was much greater and yet there was no repeal of the sentence meted out.
His dying for us was a free gift, our redemption was a free gift

Gods mercy is a wonderful thing. I agree that His free gift (our redemption) is priceless. God is always setting us up for victory; looking out for our best interest.

But I would have to disagree with respect to Jesus needing to die for us. It was vary much needed. Details to follow later.

So, I guess I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
The thief did not die before Jesus. They broke the legs of the two thiefs so they would die of asphyxiation, but when they went to Jesus' cross, He was already dead.

John 19:30-33 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

There is no doubt that the statement Jesus made to the Thief was made under the old law. About that there is no doubt. Jesus could not have made that statement after His death. There is no record of any further conversation between the two. What is so hard to understand about this?

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
The thief did not die before Jesus. They broke the legs of the two thiefs so they would die of asphyxiation, but when they went to Jesus' cross, He was already dead.

John 19:30-33 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

Oops! You are correct. I leaped without thinking on that one.
Thank you

My point is simply the promise to the thief was before Jesus died, Period

The promise was given completely before the new covenant was in full affect.

It was under the Old covenant not the new. And it has not been proven differently. But I'm listening....

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Whether Old or New Covenant, there is no indication that the thief was baptized with water as many say.

One can only assume that he was baptized prior to the cross.

We would also have to look and see if the thief was Jewish, or Roman.

Was water baptism part of the Jewish law? one of the 613 laws?

If the thief was a Jew and baptism was an ordinance of the Old Covenant Law, then did the thief meet that requirement? Being a malefactor, I would think he did not whether Roman law or Jewish law.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
Therefore, the example of the thief is not applicable to us today, since the New Covenant was not in effect when Jesus made that statement to him.

New Covenant or not, it doesn't matter. Jesus had already declared himself to be:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
He didn't say that baptism was the way; He said that He was the way. Covenants have nothing to do with salvation. Christ is the only way to heaven, and faith in Christ and his sacrifice is the only requirement--faith and faith alone.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then Jesus did not tell the truth when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". - Mark 16:16

Baptism is how we get into Christ (Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-4). Baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16). Baptism saves us (I Pet 3:21). Baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

You have to twist each of these passages from their logical meaning to fit your theology. They cannot mean what they say so you have to "explain" i.e., twist, them away.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jesus gave a great commission to His apostles to go to the whole world, all nations, and preach the good news about Him. Those who believe it and are baptized will be saved. Those who don't believe it will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

Mark 16:15,16 is simply a summary of Mat.28:18-20 where the Great Commission is given in its entirety. Why are the COC adherents stuck on quoting the abbreviated verse instead of the full commission as given in Matthew. Is it, perhaps, because they can better twist it to fit into their own errant theology? Salvation is by faith and faith alone, as the Scriptures teach over and over again. </font>[/QUOTE]There is new information in Mark 16, therefore it is not simply a summary. The Bible doesn't contain filler. So, you believe that commission in Matt 28 gives instructions for water baptism?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If Jesus really meant that the person who believes and is baptized will be saved, what other words could he have used to make the meaning more plain than what he actually said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16"?

The other words are recorded in full detail by Matthew. Mark recorded the same commission in an abbreviated form. Go to Matthew if you want the entire commission and more clarity as to its meaning.
He says to first Go.
Then to make disciples. Making disciples includes bringing a person to salvation. They must first be saved.
Thirdly, after they are saved, and discipled, then it is time for them to be baptized.
Fourthly, after they are baptized, they are to be taught some more: "teaching them all things whatsoever I have taught you."
--That is the order of the Great Commmission in its entirety. No need to use the abbreviated form in Mark 16 unless you have a thorough understanding of what Christ meant in Mat.28:19,20. It is the same commission.
</font>[/QUOTE]Your intrepretation of Matt 28:18-20 is in conflict with Mark 16:16, which according to you is a summary and therefore unimportant.

A disciple is a follower. Are all people who follow after Jesus saved? Not according to the scriptures. Jesus said "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' - Matt 7:21-23

It is not enough just to be a follower. Those who want to follow Jesus will do what He says. Jesus said to be baptized, therefore if one really wants to follow Jesus, he will do what He said. That is why those who believe will be baptized (Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16).

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized", then He certainly made a confusing, out of order, not easily understood statement.

It is only confusing to those who afraid to compare Scripture to Scripture and do not want to "rightly divide the word of truth."
</font>[/QUOTE]So, to rightly divide the truth, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" really means "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized"?

That is not rightly dividing the truth, that is twisting it to what you want it to say rather than to accept it for what it says.

No, it is not confusing to me. I believe it just like Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.". - Mark 16:16

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" and someone twists it to mean, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized", then they are trying to change God's word to what they believe rather than to base their beliefs on God's word.

You are the one that is not studying the Word of God. That is a summary verse of Mat.28:19,20. There are hundreds of verses in the New and Old Testament that dogmatically statement that a man is saved by faith and faith alone. How can you take one verse and build a theology around this one verse and ignore the rest of the Bible? Fantastic! </font>[/QUOTE]So you are saying there hare hundreds of verses that contradict the clear meaning of Mark 16:16? I have never found one.

You cannot find one verse that contradicts the clear meaning of Mark 16:16.

The foundation is much stronger than one verse, but even if it was only a single verse, how many times would God have to say it for you to believe it?

See also Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Acts 8, Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12, I Pet 3:21.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is not one verse in scripture that negates Mark 16:16 or contradicts this verse. Truth lies in harmony with itself.

Not one verse?
Is this why to this date you cannot answer 1Cor.1:17 where Paul completely distances himself from baptism.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul says that baptism has no part in being saved whatsoever; no part in preaching the gospel. In fact as far as preaching the gospel is concerned baptism is completely unimportant. He clearly says that God has not called him to baptize but to preach the gospel. How can a fact so obvious escape your attention? How do you account for such a serious discrepancy in your theology?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I have answered this time and time again. It is so simple.

Paul obviously understood the importance of baptism and this very passage proves it!

It proves just the opposite of what you want it to.

What does Paul say it would take to belong to someone? They would have to be crucified for you and you would have to be baptized into their name.

Let's look at the entire context, I Cor 1:10-17 "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Paul is condemning division. That is why he was thankful that he had not baptized more people, because more people would have been claiming, "I am of Paul" and "so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name" - (vs15).

Again, Paul sets them straight. For you to belong to me, I would have to be crucified for you and then you would have to be baptized in my name, then you would belong to me.

He knew that is exactly how we belong to Christ. Jesus was crucified for us and we are baptized into his name, therefore we belong to Christ.

You say Paul minimized baptism. That is not true. In fact Paul did baptize some of them. If baptism had no part in the gospel, why then did Paul baptize anyone? That is a question you cannot answer and be consistent.

Were the Corinthians baptized? Yes. Let's go to Acts 18:8, "...And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Notice the consistency of this and the combination of Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16).

Ok, so Paul preached to them. What did he preach? The gospel (vs 17). What was the response to those who heard and believed? They were baptized (Acts 18:8).

If the gospel contained nothing about baptism, then why were they baptized?

The Corinthins had been baptized. Paul did the preaching (Acts 18), others did most of the baptized (I Cor 1).

The good news does indeed contain instructions concerning water baptism. Always has, always will.

Acts 8:5, "Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ."

Their response, "But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (vs 12).

Notice how this agrees perfectly with Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16.

Another example is found a few verses later, "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:35-36)

The first words out of the eunuch's mouth after being told the good news about Jesus is concerning water baptism.

The good news (gospel) absolutely contains instructions for water baptism.

To you and other it may seem as foolishness, because you can't understand it or figure it out, it just doesn't make any sense how dipping in water has anything to do with the forgiveness of sins.

Read the very next verse in I Cor 1:18, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Remember, the gospel contains instructions for water baptism, so water baptism is foolishness to some, yet to me it shows the power of God. It is the ultimate act of faith.

Gal 3:26-27 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.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Whether Old or New Covenant, there is no indication that the thief was baptized with water as many say.

One can only assume that he was baptized prior to the cross.

We would also have to look and see if the thief was Jewish, or Roman.

Was water baptism part of the Jewish law? one of the 613 laws?

If the thief was a Jew and baptism was an ordinance of the Old Covenant Law, then did the thief meet that requirement? Being a malefactor, I would think he did not whether Roman law or Jewish law.

You are correct. We don't know whether he was baptized or not, it is not recorded, and speculation either way, is merely speculation.

The first instructions given to people concerning salvation after the death of Jesus is found in Acts 2.

Those believers were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:37-38).

 

[mman]

The previous post was duplicated by accident.

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Whether Old or New Covenant, there is no indication that the thief was baptized with water as many say.

One can only assume that he was baptized prior to the cross.

We would also have to look and see if the thief was Jewish, or Roman.

Was water baptism part of the Jewish law? one of the 613 laws?

If the thief was a Jew and baptism was an ordinance of the Old Covenant Law, then did the thief meet that requirement? Being a malefactor, I would think he did not whether Roman law or Jewish law.

The theif believed in Jesus and was forgiven by Jesus before Jesus died under the old covenant. That's the Issue. He did not Need the a new covenant baptism that Peter understood in Acts 2, That you seem to reject.

Jesus established a New Covenant through His death; and to enter that Covenant One must Believe in Him (The truth), repent, confess and be baptized for the Forgiveness of sins. It all works together not in part.

Can some one believe in Jesus and Not make Him Lord of their life? Would this not require a mind/heart change (metanoia)? Can they exist separate? NO! In this mind change would a person also lack a confession of Jesus? NO! Like Paul and everyone else baptized in faith are raised as a new creation

Paul understood this:

Col 2:12 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Yes it is our faith that saves us, but faith is nothing repentance

It should be clear as day, but it does not fit your theology, but Paul is fine with it and Christ is too.

Baptism by itself is worthless without faith.

And like the apostle the church of Christ teach the truth and if it it accepted they are baptized.