Water Baptism

[christseeker]

Well I guess I'm getting it.

In order to see and or enter the kingdom of God one must be baptized in the water and also be baptized in the Spirit and seeing and or entering the kingdom of God is the same as shall be saved. Also true Christians have been through both baptisms and have been saved.

Yes?
No?

Yes................... but we can still lose that.

[John146]

Mark did not know of one who believed who would refuse to be baptized.

Where did I say anything about anyone refusing to be baptized? Nowhere. Are you going to continue arguing with your strawman or are you going to respond to what I'm actually saying?

I am saying that a person is saved immediately upon repenting and believing in Christ just as we can see happened with Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:43-47. They happened to get water baptized right after that because they were by water and...why not? But what if there wasn't any water nearby? That wouldn't change the fact that they were saved.

See, where you are hugely mistaken is in your belief that Cornelius and his househould were not yet saved when they received the Holy Spirit before being water baptized. You don't even recognize when people are saved. Unsaved people don't have the Spirit in them and don't manifest gifts of the Spirit like Cornelius and his household did before getting water baptized. Until you acknowledge the truth that they were saved, baptized with the Spirit and born of the Spirit before being water baptized you will remain in error and continue to spread your false doctrine.

You didn't answer the question I asked about 1 Cor 12:13. When are you going to acknowledge the truth that 1 Cor 12:13 says that the baptism of the Holy Spirit places us in the body of Christ rather than water baptism? You point to Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 over and over again but you clearly have no understanding whatsoever of passages like Acts 10:34-43 and 1 Cor 12:13. And your doctrinal bias leads you to the silly conclusion that in 1 Peter 3 Peter was teaching that Noah and his family were saved by the flood waters rather than the ark, as is clearly taught in Hebrews 11:7. You are completely unable to reconcile these other passages with your interpretation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 but you won't even acknowledge that.

[John146]

The doctrine of men: Baptism (water) is not a necessary, vital ingredient for salvation.

The word of God: He who believes and is baptized will be saved…the believer who repents and is baptized will then have his sins remitted.

One need not ask man what he must do to be saved – one need only search the scriptures and they are clear – the one who believes, repents and is baptized is the one who shall be saved (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38). To tell one who seeks baptism not to be baptized places one on dangerous ground.

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

The doctrine of men: Cornelius and his household, despite having already received the Spirit and manifested gifts of the Spirit, were not yet saved and still had to be water baptized to be saved.

The word of God: Acts 10:43-48 says Cornelius and his household received the Spirit before being water baptized, therefore they were saved before being water baptized. No one receives the Spirit and is not saved as a result. Unsaved people do not have the Spirit dwelling in them.

The doctrine of men: People's sins are forgiven and they enter the body of Christ (the church) as a result of water baptism performed by man.

The word of God: 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

[John146]

Yes – the one who will enter the kingdom of God must be born again – born of water and the Spirit. One “new birth” – two elements, the water of baptism and the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ~ John 3:5

Are you ever going to address the fact that water baptism is water baptism and not water birth? Baptism and birth are not the same thing. Can you show me even one other verse in scripture where water baptism is referred to as being born of water or something similar?

[chad]

(1 John 5:6 NIV) This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. (7) For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

[John146]

(1 John 5:6 NIV) This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. (7) For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

What was your reason for posting this?

[Butch5]

Well, as you may or may not know, Jesus didn't invent the custom of baptism. It was already a well established custom. Baptism wasn't the method Jesus gave to make disciples. That method was already in use at the time. His point was not to establish a new custom; his point was to make sure the apostles knew that when they made disciples, they were making disciples FOR HIM, i.e. in his name.

What exactly was the method then?

Baptism was a social custom just like any other social custom. Take for instance, the Jewish marriage customs of the first century. What is the essential thing we need to know about marriage in order to obey our Lord? Do we need to practice the first century Jewish marriage customs to obey our Lord? Or do we need to be faithful to our spouse, treat them with love and respect, provide for their needs, and live in harmony with them? I would say that we need to live according to God's moral vision, and allow for the fact that this vision will look slightly differently according to custom. It isn't the custom of baptism that we need to obey; rather, we need to do what the baptism represents, which is to become a disciple of Christ.

Jesus didn't tell anyone to follow the Jewish wedding rituals, He did however, tell his disciples to baptize those who would believe.

According to your view, as you have said before, Baptism is the God-given occasion when he guarantees that salvation will take place. I have never seen you defend this position yourself, but I have read Tim Warner's paper in which he explains this position. As I recall, he decided from his investigations on the subject that Baptism was not required for salvation, but he concluded that Baptism was the only Biblically specified guaranteed occasion in which God promised to save someone. He might save someone at an occasion other than Baptism, but we do not have his word on that. We do, however, have his word that he will save those who believe and get baptized. Tim argues that God might save someone at some other time, say while hanging next to Jesus on a cross, but that there is no guarantee that God will save someone at any other time.

If I understand Tim's paper correctly, he was attempting to distance himself from the idea that water baptism was itself instrumental in the process of salvation, while at the same time maintaining his conviction that baptism was a Christian ordinance. He admitted that Jesus' word to the thief on the cross demonstrated that a man could be saved apart from water baptism and that water baptism was not serving as a means or an aid to salvation as such, but he concluded that while baptism was NOT a means or an aid to salvation, it was most definitely a prescribed occasion for salvation. In his view, we can nail down the time and place of our salvation according to God's promise in terms of when we got water baptized provided we believed and repented at that time.

According to Tim, then, the necessity of baptism is seen, not in terms of it's utility as a means to salvation, but as the occasion when salvation would necessarily become available to the penitent. In his view, it can be seen that baptism continues to have intrinsic value; even while the act itself doesn't function as a means for salvation, it functions as a prescribed moment when God will guarantee the penitent his favor. The weakness in his position, as I see it, is his unproven assumption that baptism has intrinsic value. He assumes, without proof, that baptism is an essential action in the service of being saved, wholly independent of other aspects of being saved. While he came to admit that Baptism was not essential to salvation in the utilitarian sense of a sacrament, as a Christian ordinance, he believed that God decreed it as the sacred occasion of salvation and as such, baptism continued to have intrinsic value in itself.

The Biblical witness, however, suggests that baptism only has extrinsic value as a formal religious ceremony in which the penitent makes a solemn pledge to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Apart from that, it served no purpose. We find that baptism has no property or feature or function that has value independent of a pledge to become his disciple. Baptism is not the guaranteed occasion of God's favor; rather baptism is the occasion of our pledge to be a disciple of Christ, and as such it only has value if we actually and genuinely mean what we say.

The reason why the thief on the cross was saved, is because he had the heart for God, trusted in Jesus Christ, believed what Christ said about himself, and appealed to his mercy. His sanctification/regeneration had already taken place, by the spirit of God, not by a water baptism. The thief on the cross demonstrated salvation by sanctification, which is essentially the way we all get saved.

Again, you make assumptions, show me where Scripture teaches that the thief was already saved. I am not going to explain Tim's position on baptism, However, I would have thought after all of these years you would have understood my position, I don't believe that Baptism is the place where God "guarantees" salvation will take place. The place where God guarantees that salvation will take place is when has endured to the end. The statement, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, assumes obedience until the end. Baptism is the point where one becomes "In Christ". As Paul said, as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. In water baptism on is appealing to God for the cleaning of their sins, if they come in faith they can know that God will forgive their "Past" sins, it is at this point that they become a member of the church and a member of the body of Christ.

[losthorizon]

Are you ever going to address the fact that water baptism is water baptism and not water birth? Baptism and birth are not the same thing. Can you show me even one other verse in scripture where water baptism is referred to as being born of water or something similar?

What part of the “water” of the new birth still stumps you? According to Paul the old man of sin goes down into the water and is buried into the death of Christ – i.e., renewed and regenerated by the working of the Holy Spirit – the new man (born anew) comes up out of the water to “walk in newness of life” – born of water and the Spirit -the washing of regeneration. The one who comes up out of the water of baptism has then “been united with him in a death like his” – “baptized into Christ Jesus”. There is no other way to be “in Christ” than to be baptized in water – into His death.

Have you ever been baptized into the death of Christ? If you have when and where did this take place? Please provide scriptures. You have always walked away from this question - try answering this time. Is the baptism noted by Paul in Romans 6:3-5 a baptism in water - a burial into the death of Christ as the believer is submerged in water? Think before you answer.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans 6:3-5 ESV)

"Are ye ignorant that we were baptized into his death? To those who are not ignorant the sign of baptism speaks of death. To be baptised means to be immersed, to be sunk in a foreign element, to be covered by a tide of purification. The man who emerges from the water is not the same man who entered it. One man dies and another is born.." ~ Karl Barth, "Commentary on Romans"

I have addressed you doubts on many occasions. Titus 3:5 tells us the same thing noted by Jesus in John 3:5 and Paul in Romans 6. In “the washing of regeneration” washing refers to “the laver” - the “baptismal font” and baptism in water is designed specifically by God to be “the visible instrument of regeneration” via the interworking and influence of the Holy Spirit – thus one is born of water and the Spirit. It takes one who is slow to think or one who is so blinded by their sectarian biases to miss this simply truth.

he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5 ESV)

Titus 3:5
By the washing of regeneration - 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's Commentary on the Bible

[losthorizon]

What was your reason for posting this?

Maybe he means the Spirit of God witnessed Jesus as being the Son of God at the baptism of Jesus in water just as the same Spirit witnesses the believer becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ as the believer is baptized in water - baptized into union with the risen Savior. What do you think?

[Butch5]

Actually, the fact that these churches went astray after Paul spend time in these churches, proves the point most decidedly and emphatically. Your view that the ECF's have value because of their proximal position is soundly refuted by the fact that these churches and their leaders were even closer to the Apostles than the ECF's were. If a church went astray, having personal contact with an apostle, how can you argue that second, third or forth generation folks have any greater advantage than they? Proximity to an apostle is no guarantee.

OK, first let's make sure we stay on target. I never said there was a guarantee. Having said that there is very good reason why the 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation Christians would have an advantage. For one thing they saw the errors that the apostolic churches had, secondly they had the writings from the apostles that the apostolic churches didn't. If someone came into the church teaching a false doctrine 3 months after Paul left a church, they had no way to know it was false (Unless it was blatantly against Scripture) until they could contact Paul or one of the other apostles. However, Irenaeus could easily spot a false teacher coming into his church because he had read the writings of Paul, John, Peter, James, etc. The apostolic church didn't have this luxury. The same could be said for Tertullian and the others.

I'm saying that proximity to an apostle is no guarantee of the veracity of what a person writes. If you think that an ECF should be trusted because they had proximity to the Apostles, then you can not defend that idea, since it can be shown from scripture that proximity to an apostle, let alone all twelve, was no sure prescription against making a mistake or coming down on the wrong side of a false teaching. A person can't get any closer to an apostle than having his personal attention. And if having his personal attention was no guarantee of orthodoxy, then men who simply had access to their writings have less of a guarantee of orthodoxy.

That is not what I said. I didn't say there was guarantee and I didn't say they should be trusted because they were closer to the apostles. I said they were in a better place to understand what the apostles were teaching than we are. This is just a plain fact. Concerning trust there are other factors that are necessary to consider. I don't trust Irenaeus simply because he was close the time of the apostles, Valentinus, Cerinthus and Menander were close to the time of the apostles also but I don't believe what they taught. When considering the ECF's one must take into account other factors, such as, was there unanimity in the teaching of a certain doctrine, can we find the apostles teaching this doctrine, was this doctrine taught universally over the known world, or was it something only taught in one or two locales? If all of the writers were in agreement and a doctrine was taught all over the known world then it is very likely apostolic doctrine. One only need look to the teaching of the apostles to verify the teaching.

The idea that each disciple is personally responsible to understand what Jesus said and to learn from him is axiomatic and goes without saying. Even as we both agree that the Apostles served to explicate what Jesus said, we also understand that we are his disciples, not disciples of the Apostles or the ECF's for that matter.

We are to understand what Jesus taught, however, we are not to reinterpret what Jesus taught. We are not to take His or the apostles teachings and change them to suit our tastes which is what many Christians do, as is the case here where you are taking baptism out of the teaching of both Jesus and the apostles.

The idea of being "born of water" is metonomy for a confession of repentance. As we learn from Acts 19, the phrase being "baptized into" John, indicates when someone has affirmed the teaching of John, who taught the people to repent of their sins and believe in him who would come after him. To be born of water, then is to have been baptized in water according to the proviso that a person affirmed the need for repentance and to believe in him who would come later. When Jesus told Nicodemus that a person must be born of water and of spirit, he was saying that a person must both repent of his sins and have the Spirit of God transform him internally.

You keep saying this, that doesn't make it so. The eunuch made that confession, why do you suppose the Phillip went ahead and baptized him then?

I do not agree with your premise that 1400 years of church doctrine is evidence. The only thing that remains as evidence for us, is the Bible; and the only thing that has authority over us is the word of Jesus.

OH come on, 1400 years of Christians all teaching the same doctrine is not evidence. It seems someone is in denial.

No, a disciple is one who learns wisdom from his master and is able to apply that wisdom to real world circumstances. In the real world, baptism is no longer practiced as the formalize ritual associated with a solemn promise to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. As such, a call to modern baptism isn't commensurate or it doesn't correspond to Biblical baptism. It no longer makes sense to preach baptism unless it is understood by modern Christians that the sole function of baptism is a commitment to a life as Christ's disciple. Simply repeating Mark 16:16 is meaningless.

Yes it is, there is nothing in Scripture that says the method of becoming a disciple would change. You can hang on to culture if you like but culture is not Biblical.

Paul makes a direct connection between being baptized in water and participation in the resurrection. He didn't say anything about any other method.

[Butch5]

Well I guess I'm getting it.

In order to see and or enter the kingdom of God one must be baptized in the water and also be baptized in the Spirit and seeing and or entering the kingdom of God is the same as shall be saved. Also true Christians have been through both baptisms and have been saved.

Yes?
No?

Sort of, I think baptism of the Spirit is different than the indwelling of the Spirit. The indwelling Spirit is promised when one is water baptized.

[Butch5]

There is a general principle of language that simply put, says that the specific controls over the general. Here's an example.

If I say "Cars run on gasoline", but I later say "That car runs on diesel," then that doesn't mean that the two statements are in error or inconsistent. It takes a general principle (cars run on gasoline) and then applies an overlay to that principle that is either explanatory or demonstrates an exception (but THAT car runs on diesel.) Both statements are true and complementary, not contradictory.

In this entire miasma of baptismal debate, we have to do the same thing with scripture. Here are a couple of principles.
1. We know that Scripture will not contradict itself, because God is neither contradictory nor confused.
2. Therefore, when we run into an apparent contradiction, we must understand that we are not understanding something correctly.
3. The principle of the specific controls over the general is true.

So, when Paul says "There is one faith, one Lord, one baptism", we know this to be a true statement. We cannot say otherwise. We understand, therefore, that there is indeed only one baptism that is essential to salvation, and we all recognize, without exception, that one must be baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ in order to be saved. No one disputes that.

Then, we come to the issues and examples of water baptism. We must understand, since we have already reached a point of understanding that Holy Spirit baptism is THE requirement, that water baptism CANNOT be THE requirement, it must be something else.

It cannot work the other way around, as we have too many examples of believers being saved and baptized with the Holy Spirit in the absence of water baptism, and we all agree that merely being baptized is not in and of itself salvific.

Baptized by the Holy Spirit??? I thought it was Jesus who baptized "With" the Holy Spirit. I believe your conclusion here is in error. According to Peter being baptized with the Spirit is a manifestation of the Spirit's power. Does that happen to everyone who believes?

[losthorizon]

Cornelius and his household, despite having already received the Spirit and manifested gifts of the Spirit, were not yet saved and still had to be water baptized to be saved.

Peter was sent by God to present to Cornelius the 'words by which he would be saved'. The words presented by Peter to Cornelius included the command to be baptized for the remission of sins just as Peter presented to those 3000 souls on the Day of Pentecost. Cornelius and his house obeyed that command and they were immersed in water. It wasn't the 'falling of the Holy Spirit" that saved Cornelius it was his obedience to the gospel of Christ and that gospel has always included the command to be *baptized for the remission of sins* (Acts 2:38). Of course you already know this.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

One of my favorite verses that reinforces the importance of baptism in water. The act of baptism in water points to the "inward experience of the Holy Spirit" as the believer is born of water and the Spirit. Thanks for sharing.

The reference is to a definite act in the past, probably to the inward experience of the Holy Spirit symbolized by the act of baptism. ~ WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, Robertson

[BroRog]

What exactly was the method then?

What do you mean? The method was immersion in water. The point is, water baptism isn't something Jesus invented or started. It was a well established custom already.

Jesus didn't tell anyone to follow the Jewish wedding rituals, He did however, tell his disciples to baptize those who would believe.

Actually, Jesus didn't tell his disciples to baptize. He didn't have to tell them something they would already do by custom. He is telling them to make disciples in his name, rather than making disciples in their own name.

Again, you make assumptions, show me where Scripture teaches that the thief was already saved.

Scripture often uses narrative to teach. The story of the thief on the cross teaches us that the thief was a child of God.

Baptism is the point where one becomes "In Christ".

Where is this taught?

As Paul said, as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Perhaps you didn't read my post earlier. I showed from Acts 19 that the phrase "baptized into" is a metonymy referring to a person's entrance into discipleship. To be "baptized into" Christ is to agree and affirm the teachings of Christ.

In water baptism on is appealing to God for the cleaning of their sins, if they come in faith they can know that God will forgive their "Past" sins, it is at this point that they become a member of the church and a member of the body of Christ.

I see no Biblical evidence for this view.

[BroRog]

OK, first let's make sure we stay on target. I never said there was a guarantee. Having said that there is very good reason why the 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation Christians would have an advantage. For one thing they saw the errors that the apostolic churches had, secondly they had the writings from the apostles that the apostolic churches didn't. If someone came into the church teaching a false doctrine 3 months after Paul left a church, they had no way to know it was false (Unless it was blatantly against Scripture) until they could contact Paul or one of the other apostles. However, Irenaeus could easily spot a false teacher coming into his church because he had read the writings of Paul, John, Peter, James, etc. The apostolic church didn't have this luxury. The same could be said for Tertullian and the others.

Here you are making stuff up. To stay on target, let's stick with the scriptures. Also, know that I will never be convinced by any quote from the ECF's so let's never go there again please. If you quote them again, I will simply ignore your citation.

You keep saying this, that doesn't make it so.

Saying that it doesn't make is so isn't helpful. If you have another interpretation of Acts 19, then give it.

The eunuch made that confession, why do you suppose the Phillip went ahead and baptized him then?

I don't see the relevance of your question to the point I made. Nevertheless, the example of the Ethiopian eunuch is another example that supports my contention that baptism was already an established custom. A traveler all the way from Ethiopia, didn't need to be taught about baptism; he already knew the customary ritual.

OH come on, 1400 years of Christians all teaching the same doctrine is not evidence. It seems someone is in denial.

Does that seem incredible? Did you know that Catholic apologists use the ECF's to argue for other false doctrines such as Apostolic succession for instance?

Yes it is, there is nothing in Scripture that says the method of becoming a disciple would change.

Really, well wake up and smell the coffee. It has, so what are we going to do about it?

You can hang on to culture if you like but culture is not Biblical.

Let's get over this okay? Everyone has cultural practices and some of these made their way into the scriptures.

Paul makes a direct connection between being baptized in water and participation in the resurrection. He didn't say anything about any other method.

Where?