Baptism

[markedward]

This isn't a topic of how to baptize by water. Instead, it is a topic of...

Is water baptism "for today"? I've read some stuff about water baptism, and how Christians now are not subject to it. Here is the line of reasoning. (Note: I'm not necessarily saying I am agreeing with all of these arguments, I am simply presenting them for the sake of discussion and consideration.)

Another baptism

• In Matthew 3.11, Mark 1.8, Luke 3.16, and John 1.26-27,33, John the Baptist says, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."
  
  John is specifically contrasting water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. John is specifically showing that he was a water baptizer, while Christ would, in contrast, be a Holy Spirit baptizer.
• In John 1.31-33, John the Baptist makes it a specific point that he was sent to baptize "with water" for the express purpose "that [Christ] might be revealed to Israel".
• Acts 1.5 again contrasts John's "bapti[sm] with water" to Christ's "bapti[sm] with the Holy Spirit", which by context, was the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2.
• In Acts 2.38, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
  
  Water is not explicitly mentioned here; it is something people infer. On the other hand, the receiving of the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned.
• In Acts 8, the baptism of the Samaritans, and particularly the Ethiopian eunuch,were allegedly "proselyte baptisms" (a Jewish practice that had arisen by the time, though I don't think it originated in the OT); this is based on the idea that the Ethiopian, who was a "God-fearer" (a non-Jew who followed the true God without entirely "converting" to Judaism), requested it, rather than Philip requiring it, and likewise with the Samaritans, who were not Jewish.
• In Act 10:47, Peter says, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" But in Acts 11, Peter describes the events, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"
  
  Here, again, Peter recalls Christ's words, and explicitly contrasts the water baptism as performed by John with Holy Spirit baptism as established by Christ.
• Ephesians 4.5 says there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".
  
  If people are supposed to be baptized in both the Holy Spirit and water, shouldn't Paul instead say there are "two baptisms"? But he doesn't. He distinctly says there is "one baptism".

I think the consistent contrast between John's mode of baptism, that of water, and Christ's mode of baptism, that of the Holy Spirit (), as well as the addition of Ephesians 4.5 (there is "one baptism", not "two baptisms") provide strong points for a "water baptism is not for today" argument, but my specific concerns regarding the points above are these:

Acts 8
Many people (and Simon the magician) are baptized, but after this baptism, Peter and John go to them to "pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit". This would mean one of two things: either baptism in the Holy Spirit is different than receiving the Holy Spirit (this would seem contradictory to Acts 1.5, which indicates that the apostles' receiving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is the same thing as baptism of the Holy Spirit), or it means that the people were baptized with water, then they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (which would be the same thing as them "receiv[ing] the Holy Spirit".

So two alternative questions come from this:
1) If this is a series of water baptisms (by Philip), followed by Holy Spirit baptisms (by Peter and John), what in the text indicates that the water baptism is "proselyte baptism", and not the water baptism that John [the baptist] practiced?

... or...

2) If this is a series of Holy Spirit baptisms (by Philip), followed by a receiving of the Holy Spirit (by Peter and John laying on hands), why does Christ refer to the Pentecost outpouring of the Holy Spirit as both being "baptized" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.5) and "receiving" the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.8). According to Christ, being "baptized" with the Holy Spirit is the same thing as "receiving" the Spirit, so if Acts 8 depicts Holy Spirit baptisms followed by one-by-one receiving of the Holy Spirit (through laying on hands), wouldn't this be a contradiction?

Acts 10
Acts 11.15-16 is cited to show that the baptism of Acts 10 involving Peter and the Gentiles was not a water baptism. Yet, in Acts 10.47, Peter clearly states that water should not be "withheld" from those Gentiles, and in 10.48 Peter "commanded them to be baptized".

If Acts 10 is not water baptism, why did Peter so clearly "command" baptism with water? Acts 10.47 is explicitly making water the context of the baptism Peter "commands" in 10.48.



Discuss?

[kay-gee]

I believe this topic is being discussed at great length in the thread "Questions about Baptism" Not sure there is much value in starting a whole new thread on it. It is an issue that will never reach a conclusion. People seem too widely divided on it.

all the best...

[losthorizon]

John is specifically contrasting water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. John is specifically showing that he was a water baptizer, while Christ would, in contrast, be a Holy Spirit baptizer.

Your notion that John advocated water baptism while Jesus did not contradicts what is revealed in the NT. Jesus instituted and commanded baptism in water “until He comes again” as recorded in the Great Commission – “…go…teach…baptize”.

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:15-16 (KJV)

This fact alone defeats any notion that "water baptism is not for today”. The ordinance is for today. I think the Baptist statement below sums up baptism in water quite well. Baptism in water is simply an act of obedience that symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior and is prerequisite to entry into the Lord’s church – the body of Christ. Baptism is what puts one “into Christ”

“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” ~ 1963 Baptist Faith and Message Statement

There is no denying the essential need of the “cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit” in conversion and the Lord’s words in Mark 16:16 clearly shows the essential nature of the ordinance of baptism in water (today). Where does the cleansing of the Holy Spirit and the need to be immersed in water fit together in God’s word? The answer is found in Titus 3:5 – we are saved - not by works of righteousness – but “by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”

The Apostle is referring to the ordinance of baptism that puts one “into union” with Jesus Christ and the cleansing of the Holy Spirit as we submit to the Lord’s command to be baptized in water. The physical act of baptism is the “visible sign" that points to the inward cleansing of the Holy Spirit as our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ and the thing signified should never be expected without the outward act of baptism.

Again, water baptism is as essential to the gospel of Christ today as it was 2000 years ago. Baptism is commanded by God. It is to be practiced until Christ comes the second time and man does not have the authority to change God’s word.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit ~ Titus 3:5

By the washing of regeneration - Δια λουτρου παλιγγενεσιας· Undoubtedly the apostle here means baptism, the rite by which persons were admitted into the Church, and the visible sign of the cleansing, purifying influences of the Holy Spirit, which the apostle immediately subjoins. Baptism is only a sign, and therefore should never be separated from the thing signified; but it is a rite commanded by God himself, and therefore the thing signified should never be expected without it. ~ Adam Clarke

[Butch5]

This isn't a topic of how to baptize by water. Instead, it is a topic of...

Is water baptism "for today"? I've read some stuff about water baptism, and how Christians now are not subject to it. Here is the line of reasoning. (Note: I'm not necessarily saying I am agreeing with all of these arguments, I am simply presenting them for the sake of discussion and consideration.)

Another baptism

• In Matthew 3.11, Mark 1.8, Luke 3.16, and John 1.26-27,33, John the Baptist says, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."
  
  John is specifically contrasting water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. John is specifically showing that he was a water baptizer, while Christ would, in contrast, be a Holy Spirit baptizer.
• In John 1.31-33, John the Baptist makes it a specific point that he was sent to baptize "with water" for the express purpose "that [Christ] might be revealed to Israel".
• Acts 1.5 again contrasts John's "bapti[sm] with water" to Christ's "bapti[sm] with the Holy Spirit", which by context, was the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2.
• In Acts 2.38, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
  
  Water is not explicitly mentioned here; it is something people infer. On the other hand, the receiving of the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned.
• In Acts 8, the baptism of the Samaritans, and particularly the Ethiopian eunuch,were allegedly "proselyte baptisms" (a Jewish practice that had arisen by the time, though I don't think it originated in the OT); this is based on the idea that the Ethiopian, who was a "God-fearer" (a non-Jew who followed the true God without entirely "converting" to Judaism), requested it, rather than Philip requiring it, and likewise with the Samaritans, who were not Jewish.
• In Act 10:47, Peter says, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" But in Acts 11, Peter describes the events, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"
  
  Here, again, Peter recalls Christ's words, and explicitly contrasts the water baptism as performed by John with Holy Spirit baptism as established by Christ.
• Ephesians 4.5 says there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".
  
  If people are supposed to be baptized in both the Holy Spirit and water, shouldn't Paul instead say there are "two baptisms"? But he doesn't. He distinctly says there is "one baptism".

I think the consistent contrast between John's mode of baptism, that of water, and Christ's mode of baptism, that of the Holy Spirit (), as well as the addition of Ephesians 4.5 (there is "one baptism", not "two baptisms") provide strong points for a "water baptism is not for today" argument, but my specific concerns regarding the points above are these:

Acts 8
Many people (and Simon the magician) are baptized, but after this baptism, Peter and John go to them to "pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit". This would mean one of two things: either baptism in the Holy Spirit is different than receiving the Holy Spirit (this would seem contradictory to Acts 1.5, which indicates that the apostles' receiving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is the same thing as baptism of the Holy Spirit), or it means that the people were baptized with water, then they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (which would be the same thing as them "receiv[ing] the Holy Spirit".

So two alternative questions come from this:
1) If this is a series of water baptisms (by Philip), followed by Holy Spirit baptisms (by Peter and John), what in the text indicates that the water baptism is "proselyte baptism", and not the water baptism that John [the baptist] practiced?

... or...

2) If this is a series of Holy Spirit baptisms (by Philip), followed by a receiving of the Holy Spirit (by Peter and John laying on hands), why does Christ refer to the Pentecost outpouring of the Holy Spirit as both being "baptized" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.5) and "receiving" the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.8). According to Christ, being "baptized" with the Holy Spirit is the same thing as "receiving" the Spirit, so if Acts 8 depicts Holy Spirit baptisms followed by one-by-one receiving of the Holy Spirit (through laying on hands), wouldn't this be a contradiction?

Acts 10
Acts 11.15-16 is cited to show that the baptism of Acts 10 involving Peter and the Gentiles was not a water baptism. Yet, in Acts 10.47, Peter clearly states that water should not be "withheld" from those Gentiles, and in 10.48 Peter "commanded them to be baptized".

If Acts 10 is not water baptism, why did Peter so clearly "command" baptism with water? Acts 10.47 is explicitly making water the context of the baptism Peter "commands" in 10.48.



Discuss?

Hi Mark,

Consider the fact that the apostles had already received the Holy Spirit prior to pentecost. I think pentecost was a manifestation of the Spirit, not necessarily the indwelling of the Sprit.


John 20:22 ( KJV )
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

[Tomlane]

The great commission crowed completely ignore the signs for this commission as found in Mark 16:15-18.

Mark 16:15 *And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 *And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 *They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

This command I believe was definitely water baptism for this commission was God's grace period for Israel for rejecting their King and left this grace period open while the Church that is Christ's body was dropped down into the middle of God's offer their Jewish Kingdom at that time and be taken up again at a later date. After the offer for the kingdom was temporarily withdraw, God then blinded them as to who Christ is as found in Romans 11 . This partially why Paul says the church is a mystery and not foretold before hand. This commission or command was set aside when God allowed the temple in Jerusalem to be torn down. God set aside the Levitical law and all its ordinances. We have the proof of God setting aside Israel as a national community in Romans the 11th chapter. I believe if a person will read very carefully Chapter 11 they will find God set aside Israel as a nation and through His church that is His body, God is dealing with both Israel and Gentiles as individual believers on a spiritual basis, minus the physical ordinances. Acts 15th chapter proves this. Actually Acts 10 leads up to Acts 15 when the Gentile was included in God's program that let Jewish believers to have a meeting with Paul and Peter and the Holy Spirit to learn if Gentile believers were to be placed under the burden of the Jewish law and its ordinances such as water baptism. Its interesting to note even some believing Pharisees got in on the deal as well and wanted to know if Gentiles were to be circumcised and have to keep the law of Moses as well.

I would highly recommend anyone to read the complete chapters both of Acts 15 and Romans 11 to get the full picture.

So here I'll give the bottom line of that meeting in Acts 11.

Acts 15:28 *For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 *That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Please notice of those four things for Gentiles to do, not one of them mentions ordinances of any kind, not even water. We also must remember many of the letters Paul wrote, there was still two programs still in effect. Jews with there ordinances and Gentiles who I believe many in those early days became proselytes until Paul was given revelation that the Law had been nailed to the cross {Col 2:14-17} and that both Jew and Gentile had been made a new creation in Christ on an individual basis and that both were now a new creation in Christ by spiritual baptism. That means the Jews were not under the law and its many ordinances any longer.

Colossians 2:20 *Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Hebrews 9:10 *Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Ephesians 2:15 *Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


AS I afore mentioned the above verses are revelations given to Paul at later dates and not all at once. No wonder they had so much confusion back than its no less true today. I believe God allowed this overlapping period to confound the wise of this world as that separates the wheat from the chaff.

I also don't believe any of our water baptizing friends will ever understand these truths until they can rightly dived the book of acts and admit Paul preaches dispensational truths.

1 Corinthians 9:17 *For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Ephesians 1:10 *That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Ephesians 3:2 *If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Colossians 1:25 *Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

I also realize this is one of the most unpopular positions in theology because it destroys denominational doctrine that mixes Jewish ordinances with the freedom we have under grace in the Body of Christ.

Tomlane








The results of that meeting is as follows;

[Quickened]

Is water baptism "for today"? I've read some stuff about water baptism, and how Christians now are not subject to it.

I just dont see how this is possible. Although it was a view point that i originally held I dont see how i could have held it in light of scripture and church history.

# In Matthew 3.11, Mark 1.8, Luke 3.16, and John 1.26-27,33, John the Baptist says, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

John is specifically contrasting water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. John is specifically showing that he was a water baptizer, while Christ would, in contrast, be a Holy Spirit baptizer.

# In John 1.31-33, John the Baptist makes it a specific point that he was sent to baptize "with water" for the express purpose "that [Christ] might be revealed to Israel".

John isnt downplaying Baptism here. He is merely pointing to Christ. It is after Jesus returns to heaven that He sends His heavenly Helper to dwell with His people on earth. The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs with the New Birth that constitutes helpless sinners as sons and daughters of God.

To my understanding the Jews baptised Gentiles if they wished to become part of the people of God. The thing about John's practice was he called on Jews to undergo a ritual that they saw as only fit for gentiles.

Johns Baptism also is different from Christian baptism as we know it today because although it symbolized repentence and purification Christian Baptism is performed in the name of the triune God and symbolizes our union with Christ in His death and resurrection.

Secondly later on in Matthew (28:19) we see Christ instituting the Sacrament of baptism. If Baptism wasnt for today then why would Christ Institute it as a command?

Also

In Acts 8, the baptism of the Samaritans, and particularly the Ethiopian eunuch,were allegedly "proselyte baptisms" (a Jewish practice that had arisen by the time, though I don't think it originated in the OT); this is based on the idea that the Ethiopian, who was a "God-fearer" (a non-Jew who followed the true God without entirely "converting" to Judaism), requested it, rather than Philip requiring it, and likewise with the Samaritans, who were not Jewish.

Sometimes scripture doesnt go into absolute detail. This is one of those cases. In v35 Phillip opened His mouth and beginning with the scripture in question He explained the good news of Jesus. Right after this in the scripture we see that the eunuch sees the water and immediately makes the connection to baptism.

I may differ from other people here but i draw the conclusion that the eunuch's reaction here is based off of Phillip preaching the gospel to him. I see that Christ made the ordinance to baptize. I would be led to believe that Phillip made this part of what he was talking about.

The eunuch prior to this point didnt have this reaction. He was a man that read scripture and tried to study God's Word but his outburst (for lack of a better word) almost displays an epiphany of sorts. I would be led to believe that it would be something that Phillip would have mentioned which would reflect the blueprint that Christ laid out in Matthew 28. Considering the fact that Phillip was being led by the Spirit during this I dont see why He would disregard Christ's ordinance.

And i think you addressed your final bullet point at the end of your post when you acknowledge that Peter refers back to water here.

Acts 10 in my opinion is a good reflection on how the system works as a whole. In verse 34 Peter opened his mouth and began preaching. While he was still preaching in verse 44 the Holy Spirit fell on those that heard the word. It was then that he refered to a water baptism.

I think that follows the blueprint shown in Acts. It usually starts with the preaching of the Gospel, some people are cut to the heart or quickened and then a baptism typically follows.

The bullet point stated

But in Acts 11, Peter describes the events, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"

Here, again, Peter recalls Christ's words, and explicitly contrasts the water baptism as performed by John with Holy Spirit baptism as established by Christ.

All i think this really displays is that Johns baptism isnt Christian baptism as we know it today. It also displays that being baptism by the spirit is an event that is separate from water baptism.

[Eben]

I agree wholeheatedly with Tomlane. We read Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 1 verse 17 " Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the Good News, and to tell it without using the language of human wisdom, in order to make sure that Christ's death on the cross is not robbed of its power. "
If baptism was the order of the day how could he say that? Then he speaks of the one baptism, there is only one that fits and that is 1 Cor 12 verse 13
"In the same way, all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptized into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink. "
There is nothing about water here.
In Christ

[BroRog]

I believe this topic is being discussed at great length in the thread "Questions about Baptism" Not sure there is much value in starting a whole new thread on it. It is an issue that will never reach a conclusion. People seem too widely divided on it.

all the best...

To be fair to "Markedward," I believe he is asking a different question here than "thewizter" asked in the thread "Questions about Baptism." In that thread, its a question of whether Baptism is essential for salvation. It would appear that it is intended in this thread to assume, for the sake of argument, that baptism is NOT required or essential to salvation. Assuming that it isn't, "is baptism for today?

Another way to ask this question, assuming that baptism is/was solely meant to be symbolic, is to evaluate whether Baptism, as it is practiced today, connotes the same thing it did in ancient times. If Baptism was symbolic of a believer's desire for a clear conscience, as Peter suggests in his epistle, does it connote that same idea today?

Now, Markedward, if I have misunderstood your question, please correct me.

[markedward]

Your notion that

Please pay careful attention what I actually said: "I'm not necessarily saying I am agreeing with all of these arguments, I am simply presenting them for the sake of discussion and consideration."

I will be asking questions regarding both sides (for/against current water baptism).

Jesus instituted and commanded baptism in water “until He comes again” as recorded in the Great Commission – “…go…teach…baptize”.

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:15-16 (KJV)

Your assertion that "Jesus instituted and commanded baptism in water" in Mark 16.15-16 is unfounded, since water isn't actually mentioned in the verse, this is something you are simply inferring. Those who would say water baptism is not for today would argue that, since it was repeatedly stated that John "baptized with water" and that in contrast Jesus would "baptize with the Holy Spirit", and that since this verse doesn't mention "water", would show that Jesus was commanding his disciples to baptize with the Holy Spirit. Again, I'm not saying I necessarily believe this argument, I am simply presenting it so I can get an idea from all sides.

Now, Markedward, if I have misunderstood your question, please correct me.

You're pretty close. The question I'm getting at is whether or not water baptism is specifically replaced with Holy Spirit baptism, following the ascension of Christ.

[losthorizon]

Please pay careful attention what I actually said: "I'm not necessarily saying I am agreeing with all of these arguments, I am simply presenting them for the sake of discussion and consideration."

Hi Mark – I was paying attention and your question in the OP was simply this – “"? The answer is…of course baptism is for today – it is part and parcel to the gospel of Christ delivered before He ascended into heaven as stated in the Great Commission. Baptism in water was commanded by God at the beginning of the NT era and is to continue until He comes again. Therefore, water baptism is for today.

Your assertion that "Jesus instituted and commanded baptism in water" in Mark 16.15-16 is unfounded, since water isn't actually mentioned in the verse, this is something you are simply inferring.

It is a statement of fact - the church of God has correctly understood the baptism of the “Commission” as specified by Jesus - …”go…preach…baptize” - to be the ordinance of baptism for over 2000 years. Can you provide even one scholar who thinks that this baptism was anything other than baptism in water?

Mark 16:16. Is baptized - Is initiated into the church by the application of water, as significant that he is a sinner, and needs the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit. It is worthy of remark that Jesus has made “baptism” of so much importance. He did not say, indeed, that a man could not be saved without baptism, but he has strongly implied that where this is neglected “knowing it to be a command of the Saviour,” it endangers the salvation of the soul. Faith and baptism are the beginnings of a Christian life: the one the beginning of piety in the soul, the other of its manifestation before men or of a profession, of religion. Every man endangers his eternal interest by being ashamed of Christ before men. See Mar_8:38. ~ Albert Barnes

[markedward]

Hi Mark – I was paying attention and your question in the OP was simply this – “"?

I don't understand what you mean here...

Baptism in water was commanded by God at the beginning of the NT era and is to continue until He comes again. Therefore, water baptism is for today.

I'm not trying to go in circles, but the response to this is that Christ never commanded to be baptized "in water", he simply said to be "baptized", and, in Acts 1.5, he said baptism would be by the Holy Spirit.

It is a statement of fact - the church of God has correctly understood the baptism of the “Commission” as specified by Jesus - …”go…preach…baptize” - to be the ordinance of baptism

You're completely taking the topical question that I presented out of context.

I never said that "go, preach, baptize" wasn't an "ordinance of baptism". The topic of discussion was whether this "ordinance of baptism" was water baptism. Please recognize the difference between what you think the topic is about, and what I'm saying it is about.

I'll repeat the question I laid out in my previous post, so we can all be on the same page. (This is bold, and large, just to grab other readers' attention.)

The question I'm getting at is whether or not water baptism is specifically replaced with Holy Spirit baptism, following the ascension of Christ.

for over 2000 years.

You should know very well that time isn't an authority for a doctrine. Just look at (a) the Catholic Church with all of it's "time-tested" doctrines, and (b) every other religion with all of their "time-tested" doctrines.

[losthorizon]

I'm not trying to go in circles, but the response to this is that Christ never commanded to be baptized "in water", he simply said to be "baptized", and, in Acts 1.5, he said baptism would be by the Holy Spirit.

Then please clarify for me further – is it your position that the baptism of the Great Commission is not baptism in water? Is that the position you are presenting and defending? Do you know any one here who thinks the baptism of Mark 16:16 is not baptism in water? In your opinion is baptism in water essential to the gospel of Christ today?

Now, in the second place, a little CONCERNING BAPTISM:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

Please observe that I did not make the text. Perhaps, if I had made it, I should have left out that piece about baptism; but I have had no hand in making the Bible, I am obliged to take God’s Word as I find it, and here I read these words of our Lord Jesus Christ, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." "Do not dwell on the baptism," says one; "leave that out." That is what you say, my dear Sir; I cannot see your face, but I do not believe that you are my master. My Master is the Lord who taught holy men to write this Book, and I can only go by the Book; the Book has the baptism in it, so I must stick to the truth as it is in the Book: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

First, let me remind you that our Savior’s words teach us that baptism follows faith: "He that believeth and is baptized." Never neglect the order of things in the Bible. If God puts them one, two, three, do not you put them three, two, one…Remember how Philip put it to the Ethiopian eunuch when that worthy man said, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Philip answered, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And if thou dost not believe with all thine heart, thou oughtest not to be baptized, thou hast no right to this ordinance of Christ unless thou art a Christian. "He that believeth and is baptized," — that is the Scriptural order. Read the New Testament impartially, and you will always find that those who were baptized were believers. They believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, and then they were baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ~ BAPTISM ESSENTIAL TO OBEDIENCE by Charles Spurgeon

[Tomlane]

Markward, Here is something not mentioned yet about water baptism and where this doctrine for the Protestant churches of today actually come from. After studying on it I'm convinced that water baptism for the Protestant churches came from Rome and as different ones broke off from Rome they took much doctrine and tradition with them. Even the history books bare this out. For instance, all of the popular holy days the Protestant system of religion observes comes from Rome, and not the bible. Granted these days are given biblical names and things that happened there such as in Easter, that still makes them no less pagan. I will go as far to state most of what Protestantism has is truth sprinkled with paganism and I do believe the bible supports that in Rev. 17 & 18 where it describes a religion with off shoot religions being the daughters. Anyone care to comment on that? lol

Tomlane

[markedward]

Then please clarify for me further – is it your position that the baptism of the Great Commission is not baptism in water? Is that the position you are presenting and defending? Do you know any one here who thinks the baptism of Mark 16:16 is not baptism in water? In your opinion is baptism in water essential to the gospel of Christ today?

Could you please take into account what I have said previously (twice now). I'm not taking sides, I'm defending the alternate view for the sake of discussion, not because it is my own opinion. I have already said this, so please recognize that this is the case. Twice (or three times?) now you have spoken to me as if the position is my own, when I have said already that it is not.

[Partaker of Christ]

Hi Mark,

Consider the fact that the apostles had already received the Holy Spirit prior to pentecost. I think pentecost was a manifestation of the Spirit, not necessarily the indwelling of the Sprit.


John 20:22 ( KJV )
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Hi Butch!

Does that mean Thomas missed out then?

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

also:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.