Water Baptism

[thedee]

I am going to take God at His word – baptism, when connected with repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus – “now saves us” as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Avoid the question. That is your choice.

A word of advice - if you are trying to use Eph 5:26 to defeat baptism you are self-defeating your own argument. The *washing of water* is a direct reference to baptism in water. Baptism in conjugation with the influence of the Holy Spirit and the doctrine of Christ crucified = spiritual cleansing.

I go by what the scripture says. It says "by the word" it does not say "by water baptism". Let me post the verse again:

"that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word" - Eph 5:26

[losthorizon]

Avoid the question. That is your choice.

Nothing avoided - Peter clearly tells us that baptism, when connected with repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus – “now saves us” as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Deal with it.

I go by what the scripture says. It says "by the word" it does not say "by water baptism". Let me post the verse again:

"that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word" - Eph 5:26

But why do you run from *the washing of water* in that passage? It is a clear reference to baptism in water. Are you hydrophobic?

[notuptome]

An interesting factiod water baptism in the OT was self administered. John the Baptist was the first to baptise poeple. Prior to John the preists or prophets simply instructed the person to go and wash or the washing was prescribed in the ceremonial practices of the temple worship.

All water baptisms in the bible are symbolic. The only baptism that is regenerative is the Holy Spirit baptism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

[losthorizon]

An interesting factiod water baptism in the OT was self administered. John the Baptist was the first to baptise poeple. Prior to John the preists or prophets simply instructed the person to go and wash or the washing was prescribed in the ceremonial practices of the temple worship.

All water baptisms in the bible are symbolic. The only baptism that is regenerative is the Holy Spirit baptism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

The opinion of men: Baptism in water is not essential to salvation.

The word of God: The new birth is one birth with two elements (1) the water of baptism and (2) the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit as the believer is baptized in water calling on the name of the Lord. Thus Jesus says – ‘he who believes and is baptized shall be saved’.

Arise, and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord ~ Acts 22:16

[John146]

It's absolutely amazing the extent that Christians will go to to refute the teaching of the apostles. I wonder if this is what it was like for the Early church writers when they argued against Gnosticism. Peter is clear,

Acts 2:38 ( KJV )
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

A claim to the contrary is to defy the Scritptures.

No one is purposely refuting the teaching of the apostles. We all believe that what they taught is true, we are just not all interpreting their teaching the same.

Since you insist that Acts 2:38 is saying that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was necessary in order to have one's sins remitted, do you believe that John's baptism, which was "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4), was required in order for someone to have their sins remitted? Yes or no?

[John146]

Eric, you didn't answer my questions.

Which questions? I responded to a statement you made.

Is the indwelling of the Spirit the same as the manifestation of the power of the Spirit?

I believe the receiving of the Spirit, who we all receive (John 7:37-39) is the receiving of the indwelling of the Spirit. But we don't all receive the same gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Notice Peter's words,

Acts 10:44-48 ( KJV )
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Notice Peter' recounting of this in Jerusalem,

Acts 11:15-17 ( KJV )
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

According to Peter this is being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Now I have a few questions for you. Did this happen to you when you believed? If not, does that mean you don't have the Spirit? Remember you don't allow any exceptions.

Speaking in tongues is one of a number of spiritual gifts. Not everyone has the same spiritual gifts but we all receive the Spirit (John 7:37-39). I see no basis for thinking that someone could receive the Spirit and manifest a gift of the Spirit but not be indwelt by the Spirit. If they were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit at the time they were speaking in tongues then when were they indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

Another question, If this is the indwelling of the Spirit why did Jesus breath on them and say receive the Holy Spirit before ascending to heaven? Did they receive the Spirit multiple times, if so do all Christians? Notice what Jesus said to the disciples,


Acts 1:3-5 ( KJV )
To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Luke 24:43-49 ( KJV )
And he took it, and did eat before them.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And ye are witnesses of these things.
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

This is what Jesus was speaking of in Acts 1 also. When the apostles received this "power" they had already received the Holy Spirit. This "Power" is what came upon Cornelius and his house hold. Nothing is said of him receiving the Spirit prior to Peter's account. So please explain why the apostles would have received the Spirit in addition to the "Power" and yet Cornelius would not have to do the same.

In all of the other accounts, what happened to Cornelius is described as receiving "Power" from on high. So, if this was the indwelling of the Spirit then it would not have been necessary for the apostles to receive it since they had already received the Spirit from Jesus.

In John 14:16-31 and John 16:5-8 Jesus told the disciples that He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to come dwell in them after His ascension to the Father. That would mean they were indwelt by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Whatever it meant when He breathed on them and told them to receive the Spirit that was clearly separate from Him telling them the Comforter would come to dwell in them and teach them, as He talks about in John 14-16. So, it cannot be the case that He was telling them to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when He breathed on them because He said the Comforter would come to dwell in them after His ascension to the Father.

My belief as to what it meant when He breathed on them and told them to receive the Spirit was that He was just giving them a foretaste of what was yet to come and it wasn't a case of them being permanently indwelt by the Spirit. Notice that He breathed on them. Did the Holy Spirit literally come out of His mouth? No, this was a symbolic act and not the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He was showing symbolically that the Holy Spirit comes from Him. He said He would be sending the Comforter from heaven after He ascended to the Father in heaven. If they received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at that time then why would He have said the Comforter would come to dwell in them after His ascension? Surely, He was not teaching them that they would receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit twice. Also, it's worth noting that Thomas was not there with the rest of the disciples when He did that. The bottom line is that the evidence points to the day of Pentecost as being the day they received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because Jesus said it would happen after His ascension to the Father.

[John146]

This thread should make it quite clear why there are so many different denominations in Christianity. People have their pet doctrines and will do what they deem necessary to hold on to those doctrines, including denying clear teaching from Scripture.

And that would include you.

There is nothing difficult to understand about Peter's statement in acts 2:38, it is clear and concise, however, it doesn't agree with the modern ideas and doctrines that have been added to the Christian faith, such as those of the Reformation. In particular the faith alone doctrine which is one of the doctrines driving the refusal of the Apostle's teaching in Acts 2:38. So, each one will have to decide whether they will believe the doctrines of men or the doctrines of the Apostles, I know which one I will choose.

Does Acts 2:38 teach that one must be water baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit? If so, how do you explain Cornelius and his household receiving the Holy Spirit before being water baptized? You act so confident in your understanding of Acts 2:38 and yet you have no explanation for how what happened in Acts 10:43-48 does not fit your understanding of Acts 2:38.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Nothing avoided - Peter clearly tells us that baptism, when connected with repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus – “now saves us” as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Deal with it.

But why do you run from *the washing of water* in that passage? It is a clear reference to baptism in water. Are you hydrophobic?

Just a quick note:
Hydrophobia is rabies. Hydrophobic refers to being dissoluable in water. AQUAphobia is the fear of water.

Proceed...........

[thedee]

Are you hydrophobic?

That would be like me asking you if you were a fish.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

That would be like me asking you if you were a fish.

Well... fish DON'T disolve in water... And I've never seen a rabid fish.

BTW... The fear of opinions is Allodoxaphobia, if that means anything in relation to this thread. :-)

[losthorizon]

Just a quick note:
Hydrophobia is rabies. Hydrophobic refers to being dissoluable in water. AQUAphobia is the fear of water.

Proceed...........

Hydrophobic: 1. of, relating to, or suffering from hydrophobia; 2. resistant to or avoiding getting wet.

Lol - not quite accurate professor – the reason rabies is referred to as hydrophobia is because one who suffers from that disorder avoids getting wet. Do you suffer from biblical “AQUAphobia”: “the resistance of recognizing water baptism in passages that obviously refer to water baptism”, e.g., , John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-5, etc.?

[divaD]

More importantly - what did Jesus say..."he who believes and is baptized shall be saved..."

He that starts his car and puts on his hat will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't.

I found this analogy the other day while researching this topic further. For the record, I'm pretty much neutral on this topic. I think both sides make excellent points. But let's look at this analogy a bit closer.

He that starts his car and puts on his hat will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't.

Does this mean he who starts his car, but doesn't put on his hat, that he won't drive home?
Keeping in mind, this is speaking in general. However you answer that, then try answering the same with Mark 16:16.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Does this mean that he that believeth , but is not baptized, that he shall not be saved?


Notice in the analogy provided...but he that doesn't start his car won't.

Isn't that what is hindering him from driving home, and not because he didn't put on his hat as well?

[thedee]

He that starts his car and puts on his hat will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't.

I found this analogy the other day while researching this topic further. For the record, I'm pretty much neutral on this topic. I think both sides make excellent points. But let's look at this analogy a bit closer.

He that starts his car and puts on his hat will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't.

Does this mean he who starts his car, but doesn't put on his hat, that he won't drive home?
Keeping in mind, this is speaking in general. However you answer that, then try answering the same with Mark 16:16.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Does this mean that he that believeth , but is not baptized, that he shall not be saved?


Notice in the analogy provided...but he that doesn't start his car won't.

Isn't that what is hindering him from driving home, and not because he didn't put on his hat as well?

That is the way I see it. and that also works with the scriptures I posted in #309.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Hydrophobic: 1. of, relating to, or suffering from hydrophobia; 2. resistant to or avoiding getting wet.

Lol - not quite accurate professor – the reason rabies is referred to as hydrophobia is because one who suffers from that disorder avoids getting wet. Do you suffer from biblical “AQUAphobia”: “the resistance of recognizing water baptism in passages that obviously refer to water baptism”, e.g., , John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-5, etc.?

No. Just trying to remove a little tension with a bit of inane semi-intellectual humor. Personally, I've been wound a little too tight at times about a few of these topics, and needed to chill a little and just walk in love. I even learned YOU have a sense of humor... image that. :-D

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

He that starts his car and puts on his hat will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't.

I found this analogy the other day while researching this topic further. For the record, I'm pretty much neutral on this topic. I think both sides make excellent points. But let's look at this analogy a bit closer.

He that starts his car and puts on his hat will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't.

Does this mean he who starts his car, but doesn't put on his hat, that he won't drive home?
Keeping in mind, this is speaking in general. However you answer that, then try answering the same with Mark 16:16.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Does this mean that he that believeth , but is not baptized, that he shall not be saved?


Notice in the analogy provided...but he that doesn't start his car won't.

Isn't that what is hindering him from driving home, and not because he didn't put on his hat as well?

This type of analogy is quite weak when dealing with Scriptural types and shadows, symbolism, etc. A hat has absolutely nothing to do with driving; it doesn't have even a remotely symbolic relationship to driving or home. How could this in any way represent baptism, whether essential or not?