PDA

View Full Version : Water Baptism question



ChangedByHim
Dec 6th 2013, 02:24 PM
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19 NKJV)

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NKJV)


Which is it?

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 02:26 PM
What do you mean which is it. My understanding is that they are refering to the same thing.

ChangedByHim
Dec 6th 2013, 02:40 PM
What do you mean which is it. My understanding is that they are refering to the same thing.

"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and "in the name of Jesus Christ" are not the same.

Redeemed by Grace
Dec 6th 2013, 02:48 PM
I think this is splitting hairs, for most folks who follow believer's baptism as an ordinance follow Matthew 28 in recitation, but actually it's publicly declaring you are saved. If one just stated I believe that Jesus is my Savior, I'd think God, knowing the heart - wouldn't have a problem with those words.

ChangedByHim
Dec 6th 2013, 02:58 PM
I think this is splitting hairs, for most folks who follow believer's baptism as an ordinance follow Matthew 28 in recitation, but actually it's publicly declaring you are saved. If one just stated I believe that Jesus is my Savior, I'd think God, knowing the heart - wouldn't have a problem with those words.

I wouldn't call it splitting hairs. Water Baptism is important.

Actually, when I baptize people, I say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in Jesus' name."

But I'd like to hear from others on this question.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 03:12 PM
I wouldn't call it splitting hairs. Water Baptism is important.

Actually, when I baptize people, I say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in Jesus' name."

But I'd like to hear from others on this question.So you make sure you cover all bases ...

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 03:13 PM
I think this is splitting hairs, for most folks who follow believer's baptism as an ordinance follow Matthew 28 in recitation, but actually it's publicly declaring you are saved. If one just stated I believe that Jesus is my Savior, I'd think God, knowing the heart - wouldn't have a problem with those words.I agree it's not some spell that is said that has to have the proper incantation.

ChangedByHim
Dec 6th 2013, 03:14 PM
So you make sure you cover all bases ...

Exactly! :D

Curtis
Dec 6th 2013, 03:22 PM
Both, one is a physical water baptism, and the other a spiritual baptism.

Bro Berryl
Dec 6th 2013, 04:22 PM
Both, one is a physical water baptism, and the other a spiritual baptism.

Please let's not let this thread go into whether or not baptism is physical or spiritual again. To keep it on the question asked, I understand that when we say baptized in the name of Jesus or baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost we are saying it's by their authority.

It's like being pulled over by the police, he says "pull over in the name of the law" or by the authority of the law.

It's not something to be recited prior to baptism, it should already be understood to the believer that he/she are being baptized by the authority of God because a person must be taught what baptism is for before actually being baptized, otherwise they are just getting wet.

Another reason why babies are not baptized for remission of sin, a baby cannot comprehend what baptism is for.

Watchman
Dec 6th 2013, 04:40 PM
Ephesians 3:14-16 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man...

ChangedByHim
Dec 6th 2013, 04:47 PM
Both, one is a physical water baptism, and the other a spiritual baptism.

I would disagree with that interpretation. These people were clearly water baptized here.

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.


Please let's not let this thread go into whether or not baptism is physical or spiritual again. To keep it on the question asked, I understand that when we say baptized in the name of Jesus or baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost we are saying it's by their authority.

It's like being pulled over by the police, he says "pull over in the name of the law" or by the authority of the law.

It's not something to be recited prior to baptism, it should already be understood to the believer that he/she are being baptized by the authority of God because a person must be taught what baptism is for before actually being baptized, otherwise they are just getting wet.

Another reason why babies are not baptized for remission of sin, a baby cannot comprehend what baptism is for.

So nothing should be said when baptizing?

Vakeros
Dec 6th 2013, 06:07 PM
I would disagree with that interpretation. These people were clearly water baptized here.

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

So nothing should be said when baptizing?
Actually is Matt 28 referring to Water Baptism? Acts 2 definitely is.
Matt 28 could as easily be translated as "Go into all the world, immersing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
IOW this ties directly into the rest of the quote about making disciples, teaching every thing.

When we water baptise someone we get them to give their testimony first. we also make sure beforehand that they understand why they are getting baptised. We do also say "in the name of the F & S & HS", but this is for the listeners, the witnesses, the friends and colleagues who aren't believers. Hopefully through this they understand the commitment made and to whom.

As we know "In the Name of..." means both authority, but also person/character.

Bro Berryl
Dec 6th 2013, 06:19 PM
So nothing should be said when baptizing?

I agree with Vakeros, it's for the benefit of those witnessing the baptism, that they may know of whom the authority came from and hopefully they would recognize that authority and be baptized themselves.

Sort of reminds me of the question Jesus asked the religious leaders; "the baptism of John was it of heaven or of men?" What he is asking is where did the authority come from to baptize, from heaven or from man.

This is a great thread!!!

ChangedByHim
Dec 6th 2013, 07:20 PM
Actually is Matt 28 referring to Water Baptism? Acts 2 definitely is.
Matt 28 could as easily be translated as "Go into all the world, immersing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
IOW this ties directly into the rest of the quote about making disciples, teaching every thing.

When we water baptise someone we get them to give their testimony first. we also make sure beforehand that they understand why they are getting baptised. We do also say "in the name of the F & S & HS", but this is for the listeners, the witnesses, the friends and colleagues who aren't believers. Hopefully through this they understand the commitment made and to whom.

As we know "In the Name of..." means both authority, but also person/character.

Actually I think that both are referring to water baptism. There are enough passages that refer to spiritual baptism that I don't need to make the ones that are obviously water baptism into something different.

Redeemed by Grace
Dec 6th 2013, 07:25 PM
I wouldn't call it splitting hairs. Water Baptism is important.

Actually, when I baptize people, I say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in Jesus' name."

But I'd like to hear from others on this question.

For clarification, the splitting of hairs is not the action of baptism, but whether one says 'this' or 'that' in the process.

Walls
Dec 7th 2013, 05:09 AM
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19 NKJV)

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NKJV)


Which is it?

Both are water Baptism. The command is that MEN Baptize with water. Only Christ can Baptize in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33).

The Command from our Lord Jesus was in Matthew 28 and He said; "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The grammar allows "in the name" of each individual. So we could Baptize in Jehovah, or Jahweh, or maybe Elohim (although this is not strictly speaking a name), and so on. When we come to our Lord Jesus there are dozens of names From Alpha and Omega to Savior. So which one do we use? And then when we come to the Holy Spirit, what "name" shall we give Him? See the problem?

The answer is in what the disciples, who had been trained by our Lord Jesus, do? Exclusively they Baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38, 8:12, 16, 19:4-5; Romans 6:3). That is, the "name" of Jesus encompasses and embraces all of the above "names". It is the New Testament "name" for the Triune God. As Baptism is the "circumcision made without hands" (Col.2:1-12) it is primarily linked to inheriting the earth via Abraham's Covenant which required circumcision. In Galatians 3:29 we see the path. It is Abraham - Christ - the Christian. Thus, the New Circumcision, is connected to Christ. Therefore, Baptizing in the name of Jesus is the way to go.

However, anyone already Baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit has a valid Baptism, and if somebody wants to go to the barricades about it, it is because they haven't seen the above, and it's not worth the fight. The Baptism is valid for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up all that our Lord Jesus is (Col.2:9).

Aviyah
Dec 7th 2013, 07:08 AM
"In the name of X" has to do with representation/authority not vocabulary.

Boo
Dec 7th 2013, 11:16 AM
"In the name of X" has to do with representation/authority not vocabulary.

Very true.

However, in order to not have anyone take lightly the act of Baptism, the words spoken add the solemn touch to the process. We have enough trouble in churches today without allowing baptism to be seen as some useless procedure so that we can just put in X in the box.

We do not use the words as an incantation.

watchinginawe
Dec 7th 2013, 02:58 PM
Sort of reminds me of the question Jesus asked the religious leaders; "the baptism of John was it of heaven or of men?" What he is asking is where did the authority come from to baptize, from heaven or from man.


Good point, and I think the question just prior addressed to Jesus exactly clarifies the point:

Matthew 21:23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

The chief priests and elders asked Jesus who had empowered and commissioned Him to heal and teach. Ultimately they would accuse Jesus of being empowered and commissioned by Satan.

When we speak of Matthew 28:19, we refer to it as "The Great Commission". What Jesus speaks of in the passage is therefore a charge to the disciples and thus "in the name" pertains primarily, or first to the teachers, disciplers, and baptizers themselves:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

For me, I am empowered and commissioned by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to teach and baptize. I am so commissioned because of Jesus, and His statement that "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.". Because of this fact, thus Jesus tells us to "Go ye therefore".

It would be easy to show that Jesus' statement of the above, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is not equivalent to simply "the name of Jesus". It might be agreed that "in the name of Jesus" could be understood to be equivalent the Son and all that connotes, but it would require the understanding that Jesus is the Son of God, and thus God the Father, and of the giving of the Holy Ghost. Our authority depends upon this, that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, and that the promise of the Holy Ghost being given has occurred.

Now to the Apostles, who were all Jews, the added "ingredient" here is Jesus and the "new priesthood" by the giving of the Holy Ghost to all. The Jews, like us, are monotheists, thus there is only one God. In the New Testament, the concept of God as Father is entirely unique to the appearance of His Son Jesus Christ. No Jesus, no Father. Jesus teaches the concept of God the Father exclusively, it appears a new theological concept in the Gospels. Additionally, Jesus Christ as God's Son obviously is a new theological concept for which Jesus ultimately was put to death. So we should be careful to observe Jesus' point that the authority given Him is because of His claim to be the Son of the Father, and that the promises made of the Comforter have been fulfilled.

Regarding authority, and the Apostles' claim of where theirs derived, consider the following scene after Peter and John healed the lame man and began teaching in the temple (I have bolded key points):

Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, 6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, 9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Explicit in Peter's response is that his audience knew who Jesus claimed to be, that they had rejected His claims to be the Son of God, and that they had Jesus crucified, and that God had raised Him from the dead.

Anyway, as others in less words has pointed out, when we baptize, we proclaim by what authority we have been granted to baptize. It is very similar to the conclusion of the marriage ceremony, something like: "By the power vested in me by such and such civil authority, I now pronounce you husband and wife".

Curtis
Dec 7th 2013, 03:05 PM
I am not 100% convinced that acts 2 is speaking of water baptism. Water baptism is not a means of being included in the body of Christ. Only born again people can be baptized for it to mean anything. We know John the baptist said.

Mat 3:11 "I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am — I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

The Spirit baptism is what includes someone into Christ, and only Jesus can do that. It has nothing to do with water.

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves4 or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.

When a man becomes born again he is baptized into Christ, this is the action that takes place at that moment. Later they can be baptized with the fire which would be the infilling and empowering for service by the Spirit.

Salvation, baptized into Christ, then receiving the infilling. Jesus never said to baptize in his name. I know we like to just assume it is that way. I am still mediating on this, I have not completely made my decision yet , just comparing spiritual to spiritual.

ChangedByHim
Dec 7th 2013, 03:11 PM
"In the name of X" has to do with representation/authority not vocabulary.
True. But it doesn't answer the question.

watchinginawe
Dec 7th 2013, 03:38 PM
I am going to throw this in for grabs as well.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

There is apparent in the above some form of "logic" to Paul's questioning. When Paul learns that the disciples didn't understand about the Holy Ghost, he doesn't understand how that could be if they had been baptized. I AM NOT suggesting that water baptism begets Spirit baptism, so let's not go there. But Paul understands that Christian baptism necessarily claims some understanding of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, he probes how it could be that they are baptized disciples and yet ignorant of the Holy Ghost. The whole of the scene is given in a very short passage, but we see here how Christian baptism is tied to the understanding of the full Gospel.

Also in the passage, the other side of baptism is clearly shown, that of the ones baptized. They likewise are acknowledging something in the baptism, and in this case they are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, as disciples of Jesus.

It is suggested that the above "disciples" were merely disciples of John only and were apparently ignorant of Jesus. However, I do not believe this is the case at all. In the very least, we can show definitively that this isn't the case in all examples.

When we read the Bible, our minds sometimes accept chapter divisions as if they were there from the beginning. However, there are no verse numbers or chapter divisions in the manuscripts from which we have our Holy Bible. Thus, the exchange in chapter 19 is only revealed in its full context by including that which immediately precedes it in the last of chapter 18. I will put the whole thing together here to make the bridge:

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: 28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,...

So we see here that Apollos "came to Ephesus", was "mighty in the Scriptures" and was "instructed in the way of the Lord". What did he do in Ephesus? Apollos was teaching "diligently the things of the Lord". However, Apollos knew "only the baptism of John".

It is almost certain then that the disciples Paul encounters were taught by Apollos, thus Acts 19 starts with Apollos' absence in Ephesus and Paul passing through the very region that Apollos had evangelized.

A correction to Apollos' ministry in the manner and teaching of baptism was necessary, and apparently it was well received, with him being recommended to continue in ministry.

I would propose (preliminarily perhaps) that it is more appropriate for the baptizer to state "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" for the authority by which they baptize, and perhaps for the one being baptized, that they are "baptized in the name of the Lord", becoming a disciple of Jesus.

episkopos
Dec 7th 2013, 04:44 PM
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19 NKJV)

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NKJV)



Which is it?


I baptize in the name of Jesus Christ for water baptism.

Vakeros
Dec 7th 2013, 06:29 PM
Actually I think that both are referring to water baptism. There are enough passages that refer to spiritual baptism that I don't need to make the ones that are obviously water baptism into something different.
Why make it into water baptism or spiritual baptism? It is simply a word that means immersion. You can have a baptism of fire as well. It is how we are taught leads us to make assumptions. The translators brought their own, but it simple states baptise - the method isn't stated. I don't think it refers to spiritual baptism because that is His work, though the laying on of hands has a role on occasion.

ChangedByHim
Dec 7th 2013, 06:37 PM
Why make it into water baptism or spiritual baptism?

Because I think that God calls us to understand His Word.

Francis Drake
Dec 7th 2013, 10:56 PM
I would disagree with that interpretation. These people were clearly water baptized here.

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.



So nothing should be said when baptizing?

Just a thought here. What did these three thousand souls think of the idea of baptism?
Baptism was not a new notion for the Jews. It just meant complete immersion in water.

It is very frustrating that the translators have created a new religious word, baptism, for something which was commonplace. Importing a special word directly from Greek to English has the disadvantage of giving it a special religious connotation that is absent in the original. The word "baptize" in itself, was not religious.

However, for religious Jews, immersion or baptism, was particularly familiar. They ignored the inner man, but were so proud of their external cleanliness, that it became a subject of frequent rebuke from Jesus.
Considering everything, and everyone else, to be unclean, they bathed even after just going to the market place.

Mark7v3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;
4and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they bathe (baptize) themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

The Greek word for bathe here in verse4 is baptise.The Jews were baptising themselves all the time. They had religious baptism pools, called Mikveh, carved or built outside their houses or synagogues. The men and women baptised for ridding any impurity of any sort such as the market place or a dead body, or any other unclean event, and for women, the monthly period. It was also a major part of someone becoming a Jew, or perhaps entering some other stage of religious furtherance.

Therefore baptism was not in the slightest a novel concept to those three thousand new believers. The only significant aspect was being baptized into the body of someone who had just been killed and then raised from the dead.

ChangedByHim
Dec 8th 2013, 12:08 AM
There are 3 baptisms
water
holy spirit
fire (light)

You're actually not listing them all, but that's not the question.

Vakeros
Dec 8th 2013, 12:20 AM
Because I think that God calls us to understand His Word.
He does, but you are adding something and losing something. What is our call meant to be? Is it to water baptism or is it a call to be totally immersed in Him? By assuming it is water baptism, you change the focus from being totally into Him, to being into forms and outward acts. I have no issue with water baptism, but the main thing isn't that. Jesus commission was to go and make disciples. How? Do you make a disciple by baptising them with water, or is baptising wit water merely and outward act of the inward change. I believe we make disciples by getting people intimate with God. With Him as Father and as Son and as Holy Spirit. We go wrong when we focus on only one aspect of God too much.
Remember baptizo just means immerse. This is often connected with water just as the word immerse often is. But it isn't exclusive to that.
S I agree that we should understand His Word and read it for what it says and NOT what some tradition adds.

ChangedByHim
Dec 8th 2013, 02:03 AM
He does, but you are adding something and losing something. What is our call meant to be? Is it to water baptism or is it a call to be totally immersed in Him?

I'm not missing anything and I know that water baptism is symbolic and that the real call is to immersion in Him. But the thread is about water baptism.

Boo
Dec 8th 2013, 12:08 PM
There are 3 baptisms
water
holy spirit
fire (light)

So Paul was wrong. There is not only one baptism.

ChangedByHim
Dec 8th 2013, 12:47 PM
So Paul was wrong. There is not only one baptism.

Was the writer to the Hebrews wrong when he wrote about the doctrine of baptisms (plural)?

There is only one baptism into the body of Christ is the meaning of the Ephesians passage.

Bro Berryl
Dec 8th 2013, 12:54 PM
I notice from reading the threads that much has been made of John's words about Jesus in Matthew 3

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The thought that so often comes up is that John is saying that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Ghost and that immersion of the Spirit is being born again, being placed in the body of Christ, or being saved.

Just let me add something to think about.

The Old Testament prophets had already made it clear that the pouring out of the Spirit would mark the arrival of the kingdom, the new covenant, and the blessings associated with it.

Isaiah 32:14 Because the palaces shall be forsaken; the multitude of the city shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks;
Isaiah 32:15 Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.
Isaiah 32:16 Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field.
Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.
Isaiah 32:18 And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places;

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
Isaiah 44:4 And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
Isaiah 44:5 One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.

Ezekiel 37:13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
Ezekiel 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Peter quotes Joel 2 in his sermon on Pentecost saying "this is that" meaning that the pouring out of the Holy Ghost is what the prophets had been talking about. Jesus quotes John in Acts 1 to make the disciples aware that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was to happen soon.

I say this to remove the idea that baptism of the Holy Ghost is something that is suppose to happen to us today. It has already happened, the baptism for us today is the one baptism Paul taught the church in Ephesus which is water baptism.

Boo
Dec 8th 2013, 01:30 PM
Was the writer to the Hebrews wrong when he wrote about the doctrine of baptisms (plural)?

There is only one baptism into the body of Christ is the meaning of the Ephesians passage.

The verse in Hebrews that I believe you mean may be wrong. Would you specify which verse you are speaking of for me?

Vakeros
Dec 8th 2013, 05:01 PM
I'm not missing anything and I know that water baptism is symbolic and that the real call is to immersion in Him. But the thread is about water baptism.
I know that is what the thread is about - but my point is that we shouldn't pull scriptures which aren't about water baptism into water baptism without good reason. My reason is that it is explaining the deeper meaning behind water baptism to non-believers and is calling the one who is baptised to not stop at being water baptised but to be totally baptised in God.

Vakeros
Dec 8th 2013, 05:02 PM
Was the writer to the Hebrews wrong when he wrote about the doctrine of baptisms (plural)?

There is only one baptism into the body of Christ is the meaning of the Ephesians passage.
I agree with you here. This baptism into the body is likewise spoken of by Jesus as being / abiding in the Vine.

ChangedByHim
Dec 8th 2013, 09:35 PM
I know that is what the thread is about - but my point is that we shouldn't pull scriptures which aren't about water baptism into water baptism without good reason. My reason is that it is explaining the deeper meaning behind water baptism to non-believers and is calling the one who is baptised to not stop at being water baptised but to be totally baptised in God.

Do you believe that either Matt 28 or Acts 2 are not water baptism? If so, I think that's a leap.

ChangedByHim
Dec 8th 2013, 09:36 PM
The verse in Hebrews that I believe you mean may be wrong. Would you specify which verse you are speaking of for me?

Hebrews 6:2. What do you mean that it's wrong?

Sojourner
Dec 9th 2013, 04:58 AM
"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and "in the name of Jesus Christ" are not the same.

If that's true, then the Apostles did not do as they were instructed. The four Gospels close with the Great Commission, which includes Matthew's version recorded in Matt 28:18-19. The book of Acts subsequently records the actions of the Apostles as they obeyed Jesus' final instructions. We see a number of verses in Acts that speak of believers being baptized in the name of Jesus:

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts2:38)

For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 8:16)

"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:47-48)

Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19: 4-5)

Yet, in not a single instance do we find the phrase, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" associated with baptism. Either the Apostles failed to do as Jesus instructed, and baptized believers incorrectly, or they--unlike many today--understood that Jesus' statement recorded in Matt 28:19 was a reference to His own Name. Luke records this same command by Jesus in a slightly different way:

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47)

And indeed, repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ was dutifully first preached by Peter on that world-changing day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2:38.

Regarding Matt 28:19, if the New Testament had been written in Hebrew instead of Greek, we would know Jesus as "Yehoshua," which is the name "YHWH," compounded with the Hebrew word for salvation. As such, YHWH is the name of the Father and the Son. What is the name of the Holy Spirit? Since He is the very nature and essence of God, His name is the same as that of the Father and the Son.

Jesus is the name above every name (Philippians 2:9)
At the name of Jesus, every knee will one day bow and every tongue confess His deity (Philippians 2:10)
Remission of sins is attained through the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12; 10:43)
We are washed, sanctified and justified through the name of Jesus (1 Cor 6:11)
We are to pray in the name of Jesus (John 14:13)
We are to gather together in the name of Jesus (Matthew 18:20; 1 Cor 5:4)
Demons are cast out in the name of Jesus (Luke 10:17; Acts 16:18)
Healings and other miracles are worked in the name of Jesus (Acts 3:6-7; 4:30)

Since everything we do is to be done in the name of Jesus, is it not fitting that believers be baptized in that wonderful name as well? Certainly, "in the name of Jesus Christ" refers to the heavenly power and authority of the Savior, to which Jesus alluded in Matthew 28:18-19. Yet, I believe that audibly invoking that name during baptism--as demonstrated in the early church--is as significant and purposeful as when invoked during miraculous healings and the casting out of demons. Anyway, that's my personal view on the matter at hand.

Boo
Dec 9th 2013, 09:02 AM
Hebrews 6:2. What do you mean that it's wrong?

What I meant was that I might be thinking of one verse and you might be referencing another. I didn't know what verse you were speaking of, so I might be wrong.

Anyway, I can see where you get your question. This is just an area where translators' word choice causes a problem. Hebrews 6:2 is not actually speaking of Christian baptism.

The verse you referenced, when look at from the source manuscript is:

6:2 909 βαπτισμών [2 of immersions 1322 διδαχής1 of the teaching], 1936-5037 επιθέσεως τε and of laying on 5495 χειρών of hands, 386-5037 αναστάσεως τε and of resurrection 3498 νεκρών of the dead, 2532 και and 2917 κρίματος [2judgment 166 αιωνίου 1eternal].

Note that the word in your translation is baptisms. However, that is not the actual word in the source document.

Strongs dictionary for G909 is:

βαπτισμός
ablution (ceremonial or Christian)

Thayer states:
1) a washing, purification effected by means of water
1a) of washing prescribed by the Mosaic law (Hebrews 9:10) which seems to mean an exposition of the difference between the washings prescribed by the Mosaic law and Christian baptism

Baptism is G907

βαπτίζω
to dip in

Strong's:
βαπτίζω
to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism

It comes from G911 meaning "to dip."

You will find that other translations do not use the word Baptisms in the verse. They translate it to be "ritual washings." There was no shortage of them to be debated back in those days. Note that the actual translations given above is actually discussing the teachings about ritual washings.

ChangedByHim
Dec 9th 2013, 01:45 PM
I appreciate the word studies Boo. But the NT clearly defines more than one baptism.

mailmandan
Dec 9th 2013, 04:52 PM
Was the writer to the Hebrews wrong when he wrote about the doctrine of baptisms (plural)?

There is only one baptism into the body of Christ is the meaning of the Ephesians passage.

Amen! Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Spirit baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Matthew 3:11 - As for me, I (1.) baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will (2.) baptize you with the Holy Spirit and (3.) fire.

Hebrews 6:2 - of the doctrine of baptisms, (plural) of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

How could Ephesians 4:5 possibly mean there is only one kind of baptism period in light of Matthew 3:11 and Hebrews 6:2 or that water baptism and Spirit baptism are the same baptism?

Curtis
Dec 9th 2013, 06:12 PM
There is only one baptism, but there different modes of that one baptism. I guess it would be the same as Father, Son, Holy Spirit but these three are one.

Bro Berryl
Dec 9th 2013, 07:14 PM
Amen! Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Spirit baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Matthew 3:11 - As for me, I (1.) baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will (2.) baptize you with the Holy Spirit and (3.) fire.

Hebrews 6:2 - of the doctrine of baptisms, (plural) of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

How could Ephesians 4:5 possibly mean there is only one kind of baptism period in light of Matthew 3:11 and Hebrews 6:2 or that water baptism and Spirit baptism are the same baptism?

If you look at Matthew 3:11 again you'll see that John is pointing out who the administrator of the baptism of the Holy Ghost is and not who the recipients are. John points to Jesus as the person who will give us the Holy Ghost, I don't see anything is this passage that says specifically who will receive it, it's just a open statement.

I wrote out a explanation of Matthew 3 in post #34 if you care to read it, I think it explains very well what John meant.

As for 1 Corinthians 12:13 I believe it is saying the same thing Paul taught the Ephesians 5:25. It really boils down to how you understand the operation of the Spirit in the early church, let me explain by using those two verses.

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.

Eph. 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

The Holy Ghost revealed the word of God to chosen men of God, first apostles, then prophets and teachers. This revealed word of God taught men and women what they must do to be born into the family of God. That is what Paul means he says they were "all made to drink into one Spirit" or in the other verse he says "by the word".

Both Corinthians and Ephesians were baptized into one body meaning they both did the same thing. So if one is water both are water, there cannot be two ways to do this. The Ephesians were washed with water and so were the Corinthians.

1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

ChangedByHim
Dec 9th 2013, 07:54 PM
There is only one baptism, but there different modes of that one baptism. I guess it would be the same as Father, Son, Holy Spirit but these three are one.

That could be one way of looking at it but I really believe that Paul was referring to baptism into Christ in Ephesians 4. That's the one that matters most.

Obfuscate
Dec 9th 2013, 08:26 PM
There can’t be more than one Christian baptism any more than there can be more than one Lord, one Faith, one Body, one Spirit, one hope, or one God the Father of all:

Ephesians 4:4-6 - There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Jesus instituted and commanded this baptism to be done in all nations until the end of time:

Matthew 28:19-20 - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

God, who does not lie (Numbers 23:19 – Titus 1:2) made promises concerning baptism such as receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16) being buried and raised with Christ (Romans 6:2-4 – Colossians 2:11-12). We can know by looking to our baptism we have been saved (1 Peter 3:21).

God can certainly send his Holy Spirit outside of baptism as he pleases (John 3:8) much like he did in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 16:13 – Micah 3:8). The Spirit Baptism people point to in Acts with the Apostles and Cornelius was accompanied by miracles (Acts 5:12 – Acts 3:1-10) and the speaking in foreign languages (Acts 2:6-12- Acts 10:46-47). That is not something we witness.

Acts 2:6-11 - And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”

mailmandan
Dec 9th 2013, 08:42 PM
Eph. 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

The Holy Ghost revealed the word of God to chosen men of God, first apostles, then prophets and teachers. This revealed word of God taught men and women what they must do to be born into the family of God. That is what Paul means he says they were "all made to drink into one Spirit" or in the other verse he says "by the word".

Both Corinthians and Ephesians were baptized into one body meaning they both did the same thing. So if one is water both are water, there cannot be two ways to do this. The Ephesians were washed with water and so were the Corinthians.

1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

How do you know that washing of "water" by the word in Ephesians 5:26 or "washed" in 1 Corinthians 6:11 is a direct reference to water baptism?

Have you considered "living water"? Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. *Did you see that? If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism," which would not make sense. Water baptism is not the only water mentioned in scripture.

In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit.

In Jeremiah 2:13, God Himself is called the "fountain of living water." For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living water, And hewn themselves cisterns--broken cisterns that can hold no water. In Isaiah 12:3 we read, "With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation." The sons of Korah sang, "As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God (Psalm 42:1-2). "Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17).

watchinginawe
Dec 9th 2013, 11:15 PM
No matter what, the following is one of the baptisms and it includes a baptizer and one being baptized; in water. It cannot be denied here. However, I think there is more than one "baptism" as the OP also suggests:

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Boo
Dec 10th 2013, 09:06 AM
I appreciate the word studies Boo. But the NT clearly defines more than one baptism.

What may be clear to you is not clear to me, brother. Since I must believe here what Paul said - because his statement is backed up by Peter (who never discussed more than one) - and only one baptism is commanded by Jesus (although He may have used the word to mean more than one thing during His conversations); I do not see that there is more than one baptism that a Christian is expected to experience. The word study just served to show that our use of the word "baptism" is not accurate.

That is why other translations do not say "baptism" in that verse in Hebrews. They were not discussing baptism as we Christians practice when accepting Jesus as Lord.

There is only one baptism given to Christians. Just as there is only one faith and one Lord; there is only one baptism. Paul was not wrong.

I realize that some groups enjoy the idea that they are numerous and have separate purposes, but I do not see that.

Vakeros
Dec 10th 2013, 10:33 AM
Do you believe that either Matt 28 or Acts 2 are not water baptism? If so, I think that's a leap.
No Matt 28 NOT being about water baptism isn't a leap at all. It depends how you have been taught it. The easy way to check is replace the word with a suitable synonym and see if the same meaning comes across. Change the word baptise with immerse. It brings a clearer way of understanding what the passage is about.
Acts 2 however is clearly about water baptism.

grams
Dec 10th 2013, 11:27 AM
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
ll Timothy 2:15

Time Past
Eph. 2:11,12

But Now
Eph. 2:13

Ages to Come
Eph. 2:7

Bro Berryl
Dec 10th 2013, 01:02 PM
Have you considered "living water"? Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. *Did you see that? If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism," which would not make sense. Water baptism is not the only water mentioned in scripture.

You are talking about water while I am talking about washing's my friend, washing is what I arbitrarily associate with baptism not water. And since were talking about water verses Spirit let me ask a question;

How is it possible to come in contact with the blood of Jesus that forgives our sins by being immersed in Spirit?

According to Matthew 26:28 the blood of Jesus was shed for that purpose, the only way the bible says to be joined with Christ's blood is to be joined in his death through baptism Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12-13.

The argument is always whether or not Paul is speaking of water or Spirit baptism which brings me to the second question.

How can we be buried with Christ in Spirit baptism? The scriptures clearly state that we are buried with Christ in baptism and that we are raised with him to walk in newness of life.

The clear example of a person being buried (going down in the water) and being raised (coming up out of he water) is the eunuch in Acts 8.

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

I believe the Holy Spirit revealed this to Luke to write down so that not only the mode of baptism (immersion not sprinkling) could ascertained but also that it is water that we are buried in and not the Holy Spirit.

watchinginawe
Dec 10th 2013, 01:31 PM
What may be clear to you is not clear to me, brother. Since I must believe here what Paul said - because his statement is backed up by Peter (who never discussed more than one) -

A bit too many words Boo. Peter indeed discusses more than one baptism.

Acts 11:4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,... 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 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. 17 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?

So Peter believes in a baptism from God, a like gift to those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This baptism was promised directly by Jesus, who can baptize with the Holy Ghost whomsoever He pleases since it isn't of man.

The Apostle Paul...
on Spirit baptism, note who Paul declares the baptizer to be:

1 Corinthians 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.

Then below, the Apostle Paul on water baptism, notice who Paul declares the baptizers to be:

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 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.

These baptisms at the hands of men were causing division! Even so to the point that Paul was glad he had baptized but a few of them. Even so, water baptism is not to de divisive.

In Ephesians, what is Paul's hope?

Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Paul charges the Ephesians to endeavor to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace". Unity, one, not divided. Paul's point is not to enumerate the quantity of baptisms once and for all in the New Testament, but rather the passage is an encouragement in unity (whereas in Corinthians it took the form of a rebuke).

We would do a lot better if we agreed, especially with the idea of one faith! I don't believe Paul's point is that there is only and exactly one entirely described form of faith that every Christian should observe identically, but rather that Christian faith unites believers into the "one body" he speaks of; Jew and Gentile, male and female, rich and poor, young and old.

As I have learned largely in participation on these forums, unity does not mean (necessarily) uniformity.

ChangedByHim
Dec 10th 2013, 01:49 PM
What may be clear to you is not clear to me, brother.

That's fine brother. We will agree to disagree.

watchinginawe
Dec 10th 2013, 02:21 PM
I want to go a little farther with the Apostle Peter and what he maintained regarding baptism.

We will begin with the words of Jesus:

Acts 1:4 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. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Jesus declares a promise in the above which He says is baptism with the Holy Ghost. Plain an simple. But is it a one time deal, upon one time participants? We could go back and get more words of Jesus on the matter, but I want to dwell on Peter here.

On the day of Pentecost when they are baptized with the Holy Ghost as Jesus promised, Peter declares "this is that":

Acts 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:

Peter explains the source of the phenomena being witnessed is from heaven, because of Jesus. This day prophecy is fulfilled because the promise of the Holy Ghost is given to humanity:

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

When the crowd asks Peter what they should do in response, Peter clearly references "the gift of the Holy Ghost", and he also goes on to state to whom "the gift" should apply.

Acts 2:38 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. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

So Peter says this gift is for all generations, as many as the LORD our God shall call.

In Samaria, "the gift" is again discussed explicitly and we have Peter's words about it there as well:

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

We see a clear distinction between being baptized at the hands of men and in receiving the Holy Ghost. Here, they were first baptized in water, and subsequently receiving (being baptized with) the Holy Ghost as the next verse shows:

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Peter clarifies a few things here. First that the Holy Ghost is not given by men and according to how they desire, but God does the work. Second, that receiving the Holy Ghost is "the gift of God".

So up to now, we have Jesus' promise of the baptism with the Holy Ghost, the giving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost (as Jesus promised), Peter's preaching promising the gift to other Jews, and the expectation of the "gift of God" to be received consistently among baptized believers.

Then we come to Acts 10 and 11, which I have already expounded some in my post just prior. While I won't post the Scripture in Acts 10, we see a host of believers receive the "gift of God" before being baptized by men. In fact, they were baptized by men in recognition that God had baptized them with the Holy Ghost.

But the point I want to make is Peter's reference to all of this back in Jerusalem when he explained the events in Acts 10 to his Jewish brethren.

Acts 11:16 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. 17 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?

The "like gift" was given, the "like gift" was received by the Gentiles at Cornelius' house. We can only conclude that Peter, who says the "gift of the Holy Ghost" is for all believers in Acts 2 is referring to the same "like gift" that they received on the Day of Pentecost and that the same "like gift" was given to the household of Cornelius.

But the question IS: What is the "gift of the Holy Ghost"? What is the "gift of God"? It is one and the same as promised by Jesus Christ Peter says, the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Here is how Peter recalled it later at the Jerusalem Council: Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

No difference before God. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

shepherdsword
Dec 10th 2013, 02:48 PM
"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and "in the name of Jesus Christ" are not the same.

If their will,authority and purpose are the same then it is the same thing. I have always viewed "in the name of" as equating to "by the authority of". I don't see either statement as mandating a formula. If we say "in the name of Jesus" doesn't that also include the authority of the Father and the Holy Spirit or is there some competition within the Godhead for whose name is used?

Curtis
Dec 10th 2013, 02:58 PM
It appears to me that Paul said that the only people he baptized was Crispus and Gaius, as stated in 1 Cor 1:14, yet we find in Acts 19: 4-6 we hear Paul asking certain disciples if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed. They said, "they did not even know there was any Holy Ghost" Later in that verse he asks them, " what then were ye baptized" they said, "unto John's baptism" Paul tells them, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance..."
These people were followers of John, and they did not even know who the messiah was. They only knew that they were suppose to believe in the one that John said would come after him. Paul tells them his name is Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of Jesus. Since Paul did not baptize these people with water, it must have been the Spirit baptism into the body of Christ. Then Paul laid his hands on them to received the fire of the Holy Ghost.

ChangedByHim
Dec 10th 2013, 03:01 PM
If their will,authority and purpose are the same then it is the same thing. I have always viewed "in the name of" as equating to "by the authority of". I don't see either statement as mandating a formula. If we say "in the name of Jesus" doesn't that also include the authority of the Father and the Holy Spirit or is there some competition within the Godhead for whose name is used?

My point is that we can interpret them to mean the same thing. But, they are different statements and we should not always be so quick to dismiss that with our interpretation wand.

Boo
Dec 11th 2013, 10:49 AM
A bit too many words Boo. Peter indeed discusses more than one baptism.

It wasn't too many words, I suppose. It was the wrong choice of words. Peter did not teach but one baptism. He did quote others as to what they said about baptism prior to Pentecost.


Acts 11:4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,... 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 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. 17 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?

So Peter believes in a baptism from God, a like gift to those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This baptism was promised directly by Jesus, who can baptize with the Holy Ghost whomsoever He pleases since it isn't of man.

The Apostle Paul...
on Spirit baptism, note who Paul declares the baptizer to be:

1 Corinthians 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.

Then below, the Apostle Paul on water baptism, notice who Paul declares the baptizers to be:

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 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.

These baptisms at the hands of men were causing division! Even so to the point that Paul was glad he had baptized but a few of them. Even so, water baptism is not to de divisive.

In Ephesians, what is Paul's hope?

Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Paul charges the Ephesians to endeavor to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace". Unity, one, not divided. Paul's point is not to enumerate the quantity of baptisms once and for all in the New Testament, but rather the passage is an encouragement in unity (whereas in Corinthians it took the form of a rebuke).

We would do a lot better if we agreed, especially with the idea of one faith! I don't believe Paul's point is that there is only and exactly one entirely described form of faith that every Christian should observe identically, but rather that Christian faith unites believers into the "one body" he speaks of; Jew and Gentile, male and female, rich and poor, young and old.

As I have learned largely in participation on these forums, unity does not mean (necessarily) uniformity.

I do believe that is where we all have a problem with the subject. We see the word baptism and we believe that history prescribes current actions.

The Holy Spirit does baptize - we can agree on that?

We know that Paul said that there is one baptism - just as there is one faith and one Lord. That is where people refuse to agree.

We can have both at the same time, and that is what people don't like.

Water baptism would not be divisive if we would accept that we have the water baptism commanded by Jesus and accept that there is only that one baptism - which is the same time that the Holy Spirit baptizes. For some reason, people believe that is a horrible idea. However, it also allows Paul's words to agree with Peter's words and we are obedient to Christ Jesus at the same time. The disagreement happens when we do not want to allow the water baptism and the Holy Spirit baptism to be concurrent. We instead, want Paul's words to be untrue.

Boo
Dec 11th 2013, 10:52 AM
It appears to me that Paul said that the only people he baptized was Crispus and Gaius, as stated in 1 Cor 1:14, yet we find in Acts 19: 4-6 we hear Paul asking certain disciples if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed. They said, "they did not even know there was any Holy Ghost" Later in that verse he asks them, " what then were ye baptized" they said, "unto John's baptism" Paul tells them, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance..."
These people were followers of John, and they did not even know who the messiah was. They only knew that they were suppose to believe in the one that John said would come after him. Paul tells them his name is Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of Jesus. Since Paul did not baptize these people with water, it must have been the Spirit baptism into the body of Christ. Then Paul laid his hands on them to received the fire of the Holy Ghost.

Who said that Paul did not baptize them with water? Where is that written?

grams
Dec 11th 2013, 11:42 AM
23

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.


24


Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.


25

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


26

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


27

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


So we have it all , upon belief..................

mailmandan
Dec 11th 2013, 12:12 PM
You are talking about water while I am talking about washing's my friend, washing is what I arbitrarily associate with baptism not water.

You said the Ephesians were washed with water and so were the Corinthians. Do you believe that spiritual washing/purification of the soul is accomplished in the waters of baptism?


And since were talking about water verses Spirit let me ask a question;

How is it possible to come in contact with the blood of Jesus that forgives our sins by being immersed in Spirit?

Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"

Acts 15:8,9 - So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Receive the remission of sins when we believe in Him, receive the Holy Spirit (and salvation) when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (see Acts 16:31), hearts purified by faith (BEFORE WATER BAPTISM - Acts 10:43-47). Is all of this possible without the blood of Christ washing away our sins? The washing away of sins by the blood of Christ is signified, yet not procured in the waters of baptism.


According to Matthew 26:28 the blood of Jesus was shed for that purpose, the only way the bible says to be joined with Christ's blood is to be joined in his death through baptism Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12-13.

Spirit baptism is the reality and water baptism is the picture of the reality. I agree with Greek scholar AT Robertson - It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality. The phrase "buried with Him through baptism," on the surface seems to support the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification. However, even here baptism could be understood as the sign of salvation/justification. It is not unusual in scripture to call the reality by the name of its sign. Thus, for example, Paul says that all Christians are circumcised (even though one may not be physically circumcised) - meaning that they possess what circumcision signifies (Philippians 3:3). Using this kind of language, Paul can speak of the great reality of the believers’ spiritual union with Christ, and the benefits which flow from that union, in terms of baptism, its sign. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that BELIEVING/FAITH, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16; 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1, 2). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures. If water baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that salvation/justification is by BELIEVING/FAITH, not water baptism.


The argument is always whether or not Paul is speaking of water or Spirit baptism which brings me to the second question.

How can we be buried with Christ in Spirit baptism? The scriptures clearly state that we are buried with Christ in baptism and that we are raised with him to walk in newness of life.

Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs "through faith." Christians are "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about "through faith" and is properly symbolized by immersing the believer in and out of the water.


The clear example of a person being buried (going down in the water) and being raised (coming up out of he water) is the eunuch in Acts 8.

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

I believe the Holy Spirit revealed this to Luke to write down so that not only the mode of baptism (immersion not sprinkling) could ascertained but also that it is water that we are buried in and not the Holy Spirit.

I agree that the only proper mode of baptism is immersion not sprinkling. Water baptism is a symbol of the believer's union with Christ and is illustrated by the rite of baptism in the mode of immersion. The three actions therein are symbolic: into the water - death; under the water - burial; out of the water - resurrection. Water baptism does not actually place the believer "into" Christ, but symbolizes the truth that it is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that brings salvation to one who by faith has believed in Jesus Christ. Romans 3:24-26 - Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare His righteousness for the REMISSION OF SINS that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which BELIEVES IN JESUS. Acts 8:36-37 - And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." John 20:31 - but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Obfuscate
Dec 11th 2013, 01:05 PM
In Samaria, "the gift" is again discussed explicitly and we have Peter's words about it there as well:

Acts 8:14-20

We see a clear distinction between being baptized at the hands of men and in receiving the Holy Ghost. Here, they were first baptized in water, and subsequently receiving (being baptized with) the Holy Ghost as the next verse shows:


Hi watchinginawe,

I think we should really look at these verses because they admittedly cause trouble for us all without proper interpretation with other Scripture to harmonize all the verses. If the people had not received the Holy Spirit yet, as we do, not special Holy Spirit gifts that accompanied the Apostles and Cornelius such as speaking foreign languages and making the lame walk, then these verses also fully refute Protestantism in general:

Acts 8:12 - 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.

See here according to most Protestants these people believed in Christ and would have been saved and received the Holy Spirit (See Mailmandan post). According to 2000 years of Church history, the Nicene Creed and other specific verses such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, would also not be true because they believed and were baptized and these verses say they would have been saved, sins forgiven and received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:13 - Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

I believe this verse puts it in proper perspective and harmonizes all the rest of the New Testament that speak on faith and baptism. It must be speaking of Holy Spirit gifts such as these signs and great miracles that are no longer witnessed in the modern day.

Acts 8:17 - Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Now this makes it more difficult if we are saying they didn’t receive the spirit like us, which creates faith and kills off the old Adam rather than specific gifts applicable at the time as explained in verse 13. If that is the case then only the churches that lead back to the Apostles could have the Holy Spirit as it must be transferred by the laying of hands, something only Anglicans and some Lutherans can claim in modern Protestantism.

watchinginawe
Dec 11th 2013, 02:59 PM
I do believe that is where we all have a problem with the subject. We see the word baptism and we believe that history prescribes current actions.

The Holy Spirit does baptize - we can agree on that?

We know that Paul said that there is one baptism - just as there is one faith and one Lord. That is where people refuse to agree.

We can have both at the same time, and that is what people don't like.

Water baptism would not be divisive if we would accept that we have the water baptism commanded by Jesus and accept that there is only that one baptism - which is the same time that the Holy Spirit baptizes. For some reason, people believe that is a horrible idea. However, it also allows Paul's words to agree with Peter's words and we are obedient to Christ Jesus at the same time. The disagreement happens when we do not want to allow the water baptism and the Holy Spirit baptism to be concurrent. We instead, want Paul's words to be untrue.

Boo, that would solve the problem for sure. But, Scripture clearly shows "both" to be separate in the key narratives. Unless one believes that Paul was prophesying that one day there would only be "one" baptism, then we need to stick with Scripture; and I know you agree with that. We have in Scripture water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism preceding one another, but never where they occur as one event. The closest we one might suggest would be the baptism of Paul, but you would have to imagine it. I would put the Holy Spirit baptism at the laying on of hands by Ananias and the water baptism subsequent (Acts 9:17-18).

Regardless, this idea of one and only one baptism event can only be accommodated with words like "both at the same time". That right there should sound an alarm in my opinion, especially when we don't see that as the example in Scripture. It is much more reasonable to understand that Paul was not quantifying the New Testament baptisms, but rather speaking about unity, just as he did in 1 Corinthians.

watchinginawe
Dec 11th 2013, 03:23 PM
Hi watchinginawe,

I think we should really look at these verses because they admittedly cause trouble for us all without proper interpretation with other Scripture to harmonize all the verses. If the people had not received the Holy Spirit yet, as we do, not special Holy Spirit gifts that accompanied the Apostles and Cornelius such as speaking foreign languages and making the lame walk, then these verses also fully refute Protestantism in general:

Acts 8:12 - 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.

See here according to most Protestants these people believed in Christ and would have been saved and received the Holy Spirit (See Mailmandan post). According to 2000 years of Church history, the Nicene Creed and other specific verses such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, would also not be true because they believed and were baptized and these verses say they would have been saved, sins forgiven and received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:13 - Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

I believe this verse puts it in proper perspective and harmonizes all the rest of the New Testament that speak on faith and baptism. It must be speaking of Holy Spirit gifts such as these signs and great miracles that are no longer witnessed in the modern day.

Acts 8:17 - Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Now this makes it more difficult if we are saying they didn’t receive the spirit like us, which creates faith and kills off the old Adam rather than specific gifts applicable at the time as explained in verse 13. If that is the case then only the churches that lead back to the Apostles could have the Holy Spirit as it must be transferred by the laying of hands, something only Anglicans and some Lutherans can claim in modern Protestantism.

I appreciate the post Obfuscate, but I don't see any contradiction when one considers doctrine of baptisms. I agree that no one can call on the name of the Lord without the Holy Spirit. I understand that those in Samaria were saved by faith and that Jesus Christ and God the Father abided in them by the manner described by Jesus in John 14:22-23. I believe that the disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19) were also saved by faith and had the operation of the Holy Spirit within them. That passage clearly shows how we can be ignorant of this action and that there is teaching (doctrine) necessary for fuller Christian experiences.

So I don't see any problem at all with a subsequent "baptism" which seems clearly taught and expected throughout the book of Acts. Why should I suppose that has ceased somehow just because I am a Protestant? I don't understand that actually. I think it more Protestant to "go back to the sources" and reclaim the full Gospel.

Anyway, I understand others see it differently. We receive what we are willing and ready to receive. I don't know how many people I have discussed this with that wished NEVER to have or receive any more measure of the Holy Spirit than they had, period. It also is like a socialist republic of the Holy Spirit if you were to suggest that opportunity for a fuller experience were possible. It is seen as one trying to add more honor unto themselves when we know all should be cut from the mold. The underlying belief of this is that one either "has" or "has not" the Holy Spirit and that the matter was simply a Boolean matter. But even our Lord Jesus Christ was distinguished from all of humanity to have the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34). Look up the description of "the seven" and see what qualities they had.

Obfuscate
Dec 11th 2013, 05:05 PM
So I don't see any problem at all with a subsequent "baptism" which seems clearly taught and expected throughout the book of Acts. Why should I suppose that has ceased

Fair enough, but when I read about these special gifts of the Holy Spirit in Acts as given to the Apostles (Acts 2), The Samaritans (Acts 8), and the Gentiles (Acts 10) they are explained as making lame people walk, speaking in other languages, miracles etc. When people these days explain the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" it seems to me it has more to do with an emotional high than anything that is actually taking place in the verses in Acts. When have you seen the blind see, the dead raised, the lame walk, and the speaking in foreign languages people didn't previously understand?

IMO (obviously) Paul wrote after these events and said there was only "one baptism". Jesus instituted a baptism that would last till the end of time. Paul himself saw a light from heaven (Acts 22:6), called Jesus Lord (Acts 22:10), followed his instructions (Acts 22:11), fasted for 3 days (Acts 9:9) and was praying (Acts 9:11) yet his sins were not forgiven until he was baptized (Acts 22:16). It would be hard for me to imagine with all this the one baptism Paul was discussing in Ephesians was a different baptism.


Regardless, this idea of one and only one baptism event can only be accommodated with words like "both at the same time"

I believe that (Acts 2:38 - John 3:5 - Titus 3:5) all show it as one event. It is also a fact that the universal church always believed this to be true as stated in the Nicene Creed:

"I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins"

Also, there are endless quotes from the church fathers. There was bigger disagreements by the early church what books were actually Scripture and which were not than any disagreement on what baptism is or what it does.

watchinginawe
Dec 12th 2013, 02:23 AM
When people these days explain the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" it seems to me it has more to do with an emotional high than anything that is actually taking place in the verses in Acts. So in your opinion is there a thing called baptism with the Holy Spirit anymore? And if not, then consequently that which John the Baptist preached, and what Jesus promised, was only then for a few and now the term has been retired?


IMO (obviously) Paul wrote after these events and said there was only "one baptism". Jesus instituted a baptism that would last till the end of time. Here are the last recorded words of Jesus on the subject of baptism:

Acts 1:4 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. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

I have already offered in the thread Peter's consistent explanation of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit throughout Acts. Peter explained that this promise, the one Jesus references above, that "... the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." As you said, till the end of time. It is a promise, received or not, sought or refused.

Your appeal to what others in this day say in explanation to you regarding baptism with the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with how you should view the Scripture. Scripture stands on its own. Catholics insist on the actual presence of the flesh and blood of Jesus in the elements of the Eucharist. I hear their explanations today and I don't see it like they do, but it doesn't mean that I believe the Lord's Supper is no longer to be observed.

Let's look at the qualifications for "the seven" for a moment.

Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Why didn't they just seek out brethren that were baptized? Can we no longer have some among us that are full of the Holy Ghost? Doesn't that imply that there are also those who are not as full of the Holy Ghost? Also, the passage does not qualify the seven in that they should perform all the miracles you recommend, but rather that they be full of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't really matter what I or others "these days explain" regarding the Holy Ghost, it is more about your honest reading and application of Scripture.


Paul himself saw a light from heaven (Acts 22:6), called Jesus Lord (Acts 22:10), followed his instructions (Acts 22:11), fasted for 3 days (Acts 9:9) and was praying (Acts 9:11) yet his sins were not forgiven until he was baptized (Acts 22:16). It would be hard for me to imagine with all this the one baptism Paul was discussing in Ephesians was a different baptism. As I have offered, I don't believe Paul to have been enumerating the Christian experiences of baptism, but rather the uniting aspects of the body of Christ. We know that The Apostle Paul clearly expected the Ephesians in Acts 19 to have subsequently received the Holy Ghost AFTER their baptism. Are you suggesting that the Epistle to the Ephesians at a later time was correcting his previous doctrinal error among them? I do believe that would be imagination.

I want to look at the uniting nature of baptism for a moment.

In Acts 10, Peter preaches Jesus to the household of Cornelius and the Holy Spirit is poured out. Peter compares what transpired directly and explicitly to the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised. Keeping this in mind, let's take a look towards the end of the passage:

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 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. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

We see in the above that Peter commands water baptism after those in attendance received the gift of the Holy Ghost. The events of the last several days had struck a chord in Peter about the dis-unity that the Jews had with the Gentiles (look at Acts 10:28 for example). If we just forget about chapter divisions, we see that chapter 11 continues with this narrative.

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

We can begin to see this doctrine of "one baptism" come together here. Peter would counter that God had showed him that it was wrong for Jews to separate themselves from the Gentiles. As he offered in Acts 10:47, could the Gentiles be refused baptism by men when God had shown no difference between them and the Jews? As Peter offered in 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter concludes his argument to the Jews in Acts 11 with: 17 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?

To me, it is no surprise to find Paul, a Jew, writing to the Ephesian gentiles the following: Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

The message is consistent. This is beautiful stuff. Consider the bringing together of the two INTO ONE that Paul writes earlier in this epistle, I will bold certain themes and leave it to those reading to see if there is familiarity or not:

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 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; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

And continuing...

Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

If we read Ephesians and believe Paul's point to be the winnowing of baptism to one and only one rite of water baptism, then I think we have missed the point entirely. But that (obviously) is likewise my opinion. :)

percho
Dec 12th 2013, 02:45 AM
How many times was Jesus baptized?

watchinginawe
Dec 12th 2013, 02:59 AM
How many times was Jesus baptized?

We would have to answer in the plural, right? We have of course Jesus' submission to John's baptism. But then Jesus speaks of another baptism at the close of His ministry, for example: Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! We know that this baptism is the model the Apostle Paul uses in Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:10-12.

Obfuscate
Dec 12th 2013, 03:05 AM
So in your opinion is there a thing called baptism with the Holy Spirit anymore? And if not, then consequently that which John the Baptist preached, and what Jesus promised, was only then for a few and now the term has been retired?

We are baptized with the Holy Spirit when we are baptized. "born of water and the Spirit" - "Repent and be baptized...you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" - " washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" "Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"

1 John 5:6 - This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

I don't see the supernatural gifts and miracles of the Spirit shown in Acts like I explained above currently.


But that (obviously) is likewise my opinion. :)

Thanks for the respectful back and forth. :)

Redeemed by Grace
Dec 12th 2013, 03:25 AM
We would have to answer in the plural, right? We have of course Jesus' submission to John's baptism. But then Jesus speaks of another baptism at the close of His ministry, for example: Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! We know that this baptism is the model the Apostle Paul uses in Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:10-12.

Wouldn't the baptism of Luke 12:50 be best characterized as a baptism of suffering?

But actually John the Baptist, declares that there are 3 types of baptism: Water, Holy Spirit, Fire.

Three baptisms, water or repentance, Holy Spirit or true faith, and fire and pending judgment.

Luke 3:16 John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Now IMO, Luke 12:50, Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:10-12 give intimate detail to our baptism of water and Spirit, through identification and subsequent unification that God makes us in Christ and He in us.

Believers experience the first two baptisms and escape the last baptism. Unbelievers miss the first two baptism and are judged with the last - 2 Peter 3:7.

I John 5:10 states that the one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony within himself - that is - the Holy Spirit, for Romans 8:16 adds: The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

My 2cents... carry on....

watchinginawe
Dec 12th 2013, 04:08 AM
Wouldn't the baptism of Luke 12:50 be best characterized as a baptism of suffering? I think that suffering certainly is a component. Jesus refers to this baptism in combination (or synonymously IMO) as His cup in Matthew and Mark, and we know His prayers in Gethsemane.


But actually John the Baptist, declares that there are 3 types of baptism: Water, Holy Spirit, Fire.

Three baptisms, water or repentance, Holy Spirit or true faith, and fire and pending judgment.

Luke 3:16 John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Now IMO, Luke 12:50, Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:10-12 give intimate detail to our baptism of water and Spirit, through identification and subsequent unification that God makes us in Christ and He in us.

Believers experience the first two baptisms and escape the last baptism. Unbelievers miss the first two baptism and are judged with the last - 2 Peter 3:7.

I John 5:10 states that the one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony within himself - that is - the Holy Spirit, for Romans 8:16 adds: The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

My 2cents... carry on....

Thanks for weighing in RbG! I will leave the above alone, not bad actually; you even managed to use the word subsequent! We both know we disagree on some stuff, but the above we can largely come together in agreement on!

percho
Dec 12th 2013, 05:40 AM
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Luke 12:50

Is that the same baptism as spoken of in the following? Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? from Matt 20:22

What is the cup? Is the cup the same as the baptism?

Was his water baptism relative to this baptism? Can the cup also be seen at his water baptism?

Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: from Matt 20:23 Is that baptism necessary unto salvation?

percho
Dec 12th 2013, 05:43 AM
I think that suffering certainly is a component. Jesus refers to this baptism in combination (or synonymously IMO) as His cup in Matthew and Mark, and we know His prayers in Gethsemane.



Thanks for weighing in RbG! I will leave the above alone, not bad actually; you even managed to use the word subsequent! We both know we disagree on some stuff, but the above we can largely come together in agreement on!

I disagree to that in bold. Which are the reasons for my questions in my last post.

Boo
Dec 12th 2013, 08:44 AM
Boo, that would solve the problem for sure. But, Scripture clearly shows "both" to be separate in the key narratives. Unless one believes that Paul was prophesying that one day there would only be "one" baptism, then we need to stick with Scripture; and I know you agree with that. We have in Scripture water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism preceding one another, but never where they occur as one event. The closest we one might suggest would be the baptism of Paul, but you would have to imagine it. I would put the Holy Spirit baptism at the laying on of hands by Ananias and the water baptism subsequent (Acts 9:17-18).

Regardless, this idea of one and only one baptism event can only be accommodated with words like "both at the same time". That right there should sound an alarm in my opinion, especially when we don't see that as the example in Scripture. It is much more reasonable to understand that Paul was not quantifying the New Testament baptisms, but rather speaking about unity, just as he did in 1 Corinthians.

Thanks for your response here. Scripture does not clearly show me that both baptisms are separate today. People clearly tell me that they desire that it is separate, they teach each other that they are separate; but God has not taught me that.

The fashion in which events unfolded back in the first half of the book of acts is not the same fashion that they occurred in the latter half. Paul's instruction about the purpose of baptism supports the view which has become clear to me. Peter's view of baptism supports Paul's version. I am grateful for their explanations, but because of Christ's command for baptism, I submitted before I knew what it was for. I submitted because Jesus said to.

Not everything that happened in the bible is a prescription of how it has to happen today. Instead, we have instructions to understand the purpose and reason. Those instructions are for us today; the rest is merely history. If we build a doctrine based on historical events and ignore the instructions, we end up with a doctrine that is not accurate.

That being said, the end result for all of us is hopefully that we submitted to Christ Jesus and baptism, have risen with Christ, received the Holy Spirit and we are living for Him who justifies. Beyond that, we press on as salt and light.

If anyone want to attempt to receive the Holy Spirit and His gifts as a separate event, press on. The timing is up to God, not us.

watchinginawe
Dec 12th 2013, 04:53 PM
Thanks for your response here. Scripture does not clearly show me that both baptisms are separate today. People clearly tell me that they desire that it is separate, they teach each other that they are separate; but God has not taught me that.

The fashion in which events unfolded back in the first half of the book of acts is not the same fashion that they occurred in the latter half. Paul's instruction about the purpose of baptism supports the view which has become clear to me. Chronologically speaking, did you know that the emphasis of receiving the Holy Ghost and laying on of hands in Ephesus is the last word on the matter of these "baptisms" in the whole of the book of Acts? When folks talk about the emphasis on the Spirit waning in the latter chapters of Acts, that seems an accommodated view IMO. If anything waned, then water baptism also waned since the last recorded baptism is before the last recorded receiving of the Holy Spirit and even later divine healing. Also, if we want to take a "waning" hermeneutic, why not say that water baptism is what waned in consideration of Paul's comment to the Corinthians?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 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's attitude towards water baptism at the hands of men seems to be waning! He doesn't even acknowledge a personal responsibility to water baptize converts! Paul seemed much more excited about Spiritual things, and the doctrine regarding how those things mattered in the maturing Christian. Paul could speak about water baptism to the Corinthians, but regarding the Spiritual, he offered:

2 Corinthians 1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

The water baptism did not bring the Spiritual maturity Paul desired in the church, they were yet carnal. Paul later in the Epistle sets forth much doctrine about the Spiritual, but he acknowledges they are not able yet to bear it. I think we have a lot of that going on today as well. I think we stop far short of what is promised in the New Testament. Why couldn't the Corinthians just argue that they were not seeing the things that Paul taught as doctrine and therefore disregard it as applicable?

Certainly we should be careful how to apply Scripture today, but my impression of your beliefs is that you are clearly a restorationist, so this viewpoint from you surprises me a bit. I agree with you regarding submission to water baptism, but I feel certain that we don't agree about what actually transpires in that ritual. Your arguments would largely take a restorationist view on the topic, but necessarily dividing what ought to be restored and understood regarding it's operation because of what the early church observed (including the first half of Acts), and then what is not relevant anymore because the latter church doesn't observe the same events. Or something like that. :)

As always, I appreciate your comments in the thread.

watchinginawe
Dec 12th 2013, 04:56 PM
I disagree to that in bold. Which are the reasons for my questions in my last post.

I encourage you to unfold what you want to teach here percho, but I hope we aren't getting too far afield from the OP.

I am not dogmatic that the cup and the baptism of Christ in the conclusion of His passion are the same, and would love to hear what you have to offer regarding the number of baptisms Jesus underwent and what the difference between the cup and the baptism in Matthew and Mark that both Him and the Apostles would share, emphasis being on share and therefore not exclusive to just Jesus (thus why I think RbG rightly talks of the baptism of suffering).

Obfuscate
Dec 12th 2013, 08:20 PM
Also, if we want to take a "waning" hermeneutic, why not say that water baptism is what waned in consideration of Paul's comment to the Corinthians?
1 Corinthians 1:14
Paul's attitude towards water baptism at the hands of men seems to be waning!

I have to say something about this misconception of the verse. I don’t think people understand the implications made when they act as if Paul was waning or didn’t think baptism was important. To say that, is to say that Paul went against something that Jesus Christ instituted and commanded to be done in all nations until the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus, who said “believe and be baptized and you shall be saved” and “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. Also, we must take into account Paul’s own baptism, and the other Scriptures he writes about baptism, it’s simply not possible this was Paul’s view.

The context is clear, people were bragging who they followed. The point Paul is making is that it’s Christ’s baptism and we follow him. It does not matter if Paul, the Pope, or myself baptizes it is the same effect. There is no reason to think anybody part of the early church would not have been baptized immediately as the book of Acts teaches. Paul was to preach the Gospel while others in the church baptized.


I am not dogmatic that the cup and the baptism of Christ in the conclusion of His passion are the same, and would love to hear what you have to offer regarding the number of baptisms Jesus underwent and what the difference between the cup and the baptism in Matthew and Mark

1 John 5:6-8 - This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

The water (Matthew 3:16) and the blood (Luke 12:50) the Spirit testifies, the three agree. When we are baptized in water (John 3:5) or martyred for Christ (Mark 10:39) we are connected with them all as they all agree.

As Paul says: One Baptism

percho
Dec 12th 2013, 09:54 PM
I encourage you to unfold what you want to teach here percho, but I hope we aren't getting too far afield from the OP.

I am not dogmatic that the cup and the baptism of Christ in the conclusion of His passion are the same, and would love to hear what you have to offer regarding the number of baptisms Jesus underwent and what the difference between the cup and the baptism in Matthew and Mark that both Him and the Apostles would share, emphasis being on share and therefore not exclusive to just Jesus (thus why I think RbG rightly talks of the baptism of suffering).

Well I don't know that I want to teach anything just show my understanding. The OP says water baptism question. To be honest I am not sure I understand water baptism relative to us. I believe the water baptism of Jesus to have been a prophetic picture of the baptism and also the cup and baptism spoken of in Luke 12 and Matt 20. I believe the cup is the cup of suffering unto and inclusive of death which begin in the Garden of Gethsemane. I think that is shown in the water baptism of Jesus when it is said suffer to be so and he suffered him. Let be so, take this cup from me nevertheless not my will but thine, also in Hebrews 5:7,8 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Now I believe we prophetically see that cup of suffering for ourselves, in our water baptism per Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Now Jesus says also in Matt 20 we shall indeed drink the cup, suffer unto death, and be baptized with. Continue on in Romans 6. The baptism of Christ to be Titus 3:5 washing of regeneration, Matt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, (immersed in life) went up straightway out of the water: (Then): and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And: renewing of Holy Spirit. See also Acts 2:32,33 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, A picture of the resurrection of Jesus. Acts 13:33 What did God say concerning raising up Jesus? God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Back to the water baptism. Matt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I believe this is even seen in the passage of the building of the church of God. the gates of hell (Hades) [suffering unto and inclusive of death] shall not prevail against it.(her) She shall be washed of regeneration. Will follow Jesus in regeneration.

And Jesus said to them, 'Verily I say to you, that ye who did follow me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of his glory, shall sit -- ye also -- upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; Matt 19:28 YLT and I did remove a comer following, did follow me,.


Do we still have a baptism to be baptized with?

watchinginawe
Dec 12th 2013, 09:56 PM
I have to say something about this misconception of the verse. I don’t think people understand the implications made when they act as if Paul was waning or didn’t think baptism was important. To say that, is to say that Paul went against something that Jesus Christ instituted and commanded to be done in all nations until the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus, who said “believe and be baptized and you shall be saved” and “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. Also, we must take into account Paul’s own baptism, and the other Scriptures he writes about baptism, it’s simply not possible this was Paul’s view.

The context is clear, people were bragging who they followed. The point Paul is making is that it’s Christ’s baptism and we follow him. It does not matter if Paul, the Pope, or myself baptizes it is the same effect. There is no reason to think anybody part of the early church would not have been baptized immediately as the book of Acts teaches. Paul was to preach the Gospel while others in the church baptized.

Obfuscate, that was exactly my point. I interpreted water baptism as a practice through a lens of a "waning hermeneutic", one that would support an already arrived at conclusion. Something like "we don't see anything but emotionalism and no power today, so perhaps it waned in the Scripture indicating what we observe is normal for today". Or something like that.

Of course I don't believe the Scripture shows water baptism waning and I don't suggest we use that kind of filter in determining what we believe applies today. I am just using that as an example to show how easily it is to support contrary doctrines like the influence of the Holy Spirit waning in the book of Acts and in Paul's later writings. It is much easier, given the words of the Apostle Paul, to make a faux case for "waning" of baptism. I am glad you had that reaction to it as well, I think it appropriate!

You also make a very strong point about what Jesus Christ ordained in water baptism, but where are you on His promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? If I understood you correctly earlier, you are a "both at the same time" advocate, perhaps suggesting that the Apostle Paul had later come to this conclusion in his teachings. I don't believe you will find something more direct than Paul's criticism of baptism in Corinthians though. I have heard many a person advocate that Paul wrote the chapters on gifts of the Holy Spirit with the intent of showing how the Holy Spirit should not operate at all in the church. It is an upside down reading, and it is much easier to twist Paul's words regarding baptism into a negative view towards it than of Spiritual gifts. So that is my point in my devised "waning hermeneutic".

Probably most won't read this and assume that I believe and teach that water baptism has waned and isn't for today! That is the beauty of these forums!

Vakeros
Dec 12th 2013, 10:21 PM
I have to say something about this misconception of the verse. I don’t think people understand the implications made when they act as if Paul was waning or didn’t think baptism was important. To say that, is to say that Paul went against something that Jesus Christ instituted and commanded to be done in all nations until the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus, who said “believe and be baptized and you shall be saved” and “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. Also, we must take into account Paul’s own baptism, and the other Scriptures he writes about baptism, it’s simply not possible this was Paul’s view.

Though I agree with how you dealt with the text in context, it is still true that he personally didn't baptise many.
Also Matt 28 is NOT a teaching to baptise with water. People state this, yet why do they? They see the word baptise and immediately think water. If you read the word "immerse" then you will realise in context Jesus is saying - "guys you need to really get into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. You do it by ..." That's my paraphrase, but it is a fair one I think. If we read this as water then the focus moves to water baptism and not a focus on abiding in Him.

watchinginawe
Dec 12th 2013, 10:24 PM
Well I don't know that I want to teach anything just show my understanding. The OP says water baptism question. To be honest I am not sure I understand water baptism relative to us. I believe the water baptism of Jesus to have been a prophetic picture of the baptism and also the cup and baptism spoken of in Luke 12 and Matt 20. I believe the cup is the cup of suffering unto and inclusive of death which begin in the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fine with that, but can't put a definite starting line on it. So are you suggesting that up to the death is Jesus' cup He was speaking of, and that the baptism He spoke of in Luke 12 was then His burial and resurrection? These are some of the issues which cause me to view them (the cup and the baptism) as synonymous. There may be a deeper theological point that will ultimately come to me in the years to come, but that is where I am with it at this juncture.



Now I believe we prophetically see that cup of suffering for ourselves, in our water baptism per Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Now Jesus says also in Matt 20 we shall indeed drink the cup, suffer unto death, and be baptized with. Continue on in Romans 6. The baptism of Christ to be Titus 3:5 washing of regeneration,... I think another good passage about parallel suffering and glorification is Romans 8 which concludes:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.


...Matt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, (immersed in life) went up straightway out of the water: (Then): and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And: renewing of Holy Spirit. See also Acts 2:32,33 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, A picture of the resurrection of Jesus. Acts 13:33 What did God say concerning raising up Jesus? God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Back to the water baptism. Matt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I believe this is even seen in the passage of the building of the church of God. the gates of hell (Hades) [suffering unto and inclusive of death] shall not prevail against it.(her) She shall be washed of regeneration. Will follow Jesus in regeneration.

And Jesus said to them, 'Verily I say to you, that ye who did follow me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of his glory, shall sit -- ye also -- upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; Matt 19:28 YLT and I did remove a comer following, did follow me,.


Do we still have a baptism to be baptized with? Good question on the end there. I believe Jesus was speaking directly to the Apostles about their cup of suffering as Apostles when He addressed them. However, Paul's examples clearly show we are to identify with the suffering of Jesus, or perhaps the price paid. We will certainly die if the Lord tarries, so that is yet ahead. And if we die in Christ, then we will be resurrected, just as the example of water baptism shows.

Obfuscate
Dec 12th 2013, 11:23 PM
You also make a very strong point about what Jesus Christ ordained in water baptism, but where are you on His promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? If I understood you correctly earlier, you are a "both at the same time" advocate

Yes, I believe Jesus instituted a baptism of both water and Spirit and I believe verses such as (John 3:5 - Acts 2:38 - Titus 3:5 - 1 John 5:6-8) clearly point to this. Many point to verses such as Acts 1:5 and Acts 2:2-4, however, we must realize the Apostles already had the Holy Spirit well before that:

John 20:22 - And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit".

The Spirit came with power and they spoke tongues of fire at Pentecost, which according to the text was clearly speaking in foreign languages. They then went on to perform miracles and signs. The Samaritans (Acts 8), Gentiles (Acts 10), and followers of John the Baptist (Acts 19) also received some of these gifts, in particular the text shows speaking of foreign languages, as to unite the early church.

However, on Pentecost those that witnessed the Apostles asked "“Brothers, what shall we do?” and Peter answered “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". This is the same promise for us. Until I see any evidence of these specific gifts of the Spirit explained in Acts as a separate baptism for believers, I'm going to believe there is only one Baptism (as Paul says) and it is both water and Spirit (as Jesus says).

I do appreciate your time and respect your interpretation even if we won't agree.

percho
Dec 13th 2013, 03:38 AM
I am fine with that, but can't put a definite starting line on it. So are you suggesting that up to the death is Jesus' cup He was speaking of, and that the baptism He spoke of in Luke 12 was then His burial and resurrection? These are some of the issues which cause me to view them (the cup and the baptism) as synonymous. There may be a deeper theological point that will ultimately come to me in the years to come, but that is where I am with it at this juncture.


I think another good passage about parallel suffering and glorification is Romans 8 which concludes:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Good question on the end there. I believe Jesus was speaking directly to the Apostles about their cup of suffering as Apostles when He addressed them. However, Paul's examples clearly show we are to identify with the suffering of Jesus, or perhaps the price paid. We will certainly die if the Lord tarries, so that is yet ahead. And if we die in Christ, then we will be resurrected, just as the example of water baptism shows.

Well I'll be 71 day after Christmas so don't know how many years to come I have but when you think about it day you are born you don't know how many years you have to think about things.

As I have stated I am still not sure how I think our water baptism relates to the baptism. Unless it is saying I understand as Jesus suffered and died so must I also which I think you see in the passage you posted from Rom 8. Through out the word of God we see the suffering of the saints, There are many passage which speak of it. This one came before me the other day of which I don't think I had given much thought before.

Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God. For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me. Phil 1:27-30

I believe we see the cup of suffering in a lot of passages relative to the joy which follows.

Boo
Dec 13th 2013, 09:47 AM
Though I agree with how you dealt with the text in context, it is still true that he personally didn't baptise many.
Also Matt 28 is NOT a teaching to baptise with water. People state this, yet why do they? They see the word baptise and immediately think water. If you read the word "immerse" then you will realise in context Jesus is saying - "guys you need to really get into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. You do it by ..." That's my paraphrase, but it is a fair one I think. If we read this as water then the focus moves to water baptism and not a focus on abiding in Him.

Paul's concern about baptizing was the result of the human tendency to believe that it makes a difference which child of God immerses you. It because a matter of prestige. Apparently, there was more prestige assigned if Paul performed the act. He was grateful that he did not baptize many and create a big crowd of groupies. He knew that his task was to pierce hearts and draw people to Christ Jesus. He had people with him to go down into the water.

I know how a disciple can baptize a person. They go to the water and immerse the person in the name of Jesus.

Tell me how a disciple can baptize a person in the Holy Spirit if that disciple is not the Holy Spirit.

Only the Holy Spirit can perform the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not baptize on my command and He is not a tool to be used like a tub of water.

I know that Jesus had his disciples baptizing people in water. Did Jesus ever teach His disciples to baptize by using the Holy Spirit? I don't recollect that was ever written in the Gospels, but I have missed things before.

The reason that we believe the Matthew 28 contains the command to baptize people in water is because that is what Jesus taught His disciples to do. To me, it makes perfect sense.

What God does before, during, and after the acts is performed is up to God. Since both Paul and Peter stated the purpose and effectiveness of water baptism, I'll go with understanding that God expects us to submit to it and let God handle His end of it.

Boo
Dec 13th 2013, 09:56 AM
Chronologically speaking, did you know that the emphasis of receiving the Holy Ghost and laying on of hands in Ephesus is the last word on the matter of these "baptisms" in the whole of the book of Acts? When folks talk about the emphasis on the Spirit waning in the latter chapters of Acts, that seems an accommodated view IMO. If anything waned, then water baptism also waned since the last recorded baptism is before the last recorded receiving of the Holy Spirit and even later divine healing. Also, if we want to take a "waning" hermeneutic, why not say that water baptism is what waned in consideration of Paul's comment to the Corinthians?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 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's attitude towards water baptism at the hands of men seems to be waning! He doesn't even acknowledge a personal responsibility to water baptize converts! Paul seemed much more excited about Spiritual things, and the doctrine regarding how those things mattered in the maturing Christian. Paul could speak about water baptism to the Corinthians, but regarding the Spiritual, he offered:

2 Corinthians 1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

The water baptism did not bring the Spiritual maturity Paul desired in the church, they were yet carnal. Paul later in the Epistle sets forth much doctrine about the Spiritual, but he acknowledges they are not able yet to bear it. I think we have a lot of that going on today as well. I think we stop far short of what is promised in the New Testament. Why couldn't the Corinthians just argue that they were not seeing the things that Paul taught as doctrine and therefore disregard it as applicable?

Certainly we should be careful how to apply Scripture today, but my impression of your beliefs is that you are clearly a restorationist, so this viewpoint from you surprises me a bit. I agree with you regarding submission to water baptism, but I feel certain that we don't agree about what actually transpires in that ritual. Your arguments would largely take a restorationist view on the topic, but necessarily dividing what ought to be restored and understood regarding it's operation because of what the early church observed (including the first half of Acts), and then what is not relevant anymore because the latter church doesn't observe the same events. Or something like that. :)

As always, I appreciate your comments in the thread.

Please understand that I do not know what a "restorationist" is. I'll have to Google it, I guess.

I believe that nothing Jesus ever said will wane unless He says they will.

I am comfortable with understanding the one baptism issue. I have zero problems with that, and I have prayed repeatedly that God show me if I am in error. So far, He has not done that. I realize that this can be a matter of when He may choose to correct me, but for now, I must press on with what I have discovered to be factual.

The Holy Spirit does the baptizing. I cannot do it for Him, nor can I command Him to do that. He chooses His timing, and as far as I can see; He can certainly do it during the water baptism. I see nothing else to tell me when He may choose to do it, nor do I see instructions to tell us how we must facilitate His actions in that regard. Therefore, I leave it up to Him.

If Paul says that there is only one baptism, I'll go with that until God shows me differently. I don't think my beliefs harm anyone.

God bless.

Vakeros
Dec 13th 2013, 12:20 PM
Paul's concern about baptizing was the result of the human tendency to believe that it makes a difference which child of God immerses you. It because a matter of prestige. Apparently, there was more prestige assigned if Paul performed the act. He was grateful that he did not baptize many and create a big crowd of groupies. He knew that his task was to pierce hearts and draw people to Christ Jesus. He had people with him to go down into the water.
Though I agree that the context points out that people do have that tendency, Paul wasn't saying someone else baptised on my behalf. That is a later idea being brought into the text, based around the other point. It is a possible solution, but not one from scripture.


I know how a disciple can baptize a person. They go to the water and immerse the person in the name of Jesus.
Tell me how a disciple can baptize a person in the Holy Spirit if that disciple is not the Holy Spirit.
Only the Holy Spirit can perform the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not baptize on my command and He is not a tool to be used like a tub of water.
1) You know how a person can immerse a person in water. However how do they immerse them in the Name of Jesus? There is a requirement for having Jesus yourself and His authority.
2) Do you have the Holy Spirit in you? Do you have the authority as per Jesus command in Matt 28 to immerse people in the Name of the Holy Spirit? If so then you CAN and even MUST immerse them in the Name of the Holy Spirit.
3) Understanding what it means to immerse someone in the Name of someone else is at the heart of understanding this. It isn't about outward actions. A non-believer can do those.
4) Does God answer your prayers? Does that include the Holy Spirit? This is a matter of your standing with God. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to us.
5) we are told in the Bible that Jesus immerses in the Holy Spirit. The fact that I am acting on His behalf doesn't stop it being Him doing it. We have numerous occasions where the disciples laid on hands for the impartation of the Holy Spirit. This was no different than laying on of hands for healing or for anything else God was going to do. It happens because God is in it. It is according to His will. If it isn't then it doesn't happen.


I know that Jesus had his disciples baptizing people in water. Did Jesus ever teach His disciples to baptize by using the Holy Spirit? I don't recollect that was ever written in the Gospels, but I have missed things before.
The reason that we believe the Matthew 28 contains the command to baptize people in water is because that is what Jesus taught His disciples to do. To me, it makes perfect sense.
Jesus as we read NEVER baptised anyone, also He NEVER taught His disciples to baptise with water. Baptising with water was what John the Baptist did and was an act of repentance. Jesus never told anyone to be baptised. All He taught was repent. Baptism isn't wrong, but it is the repentance that Jesus wants. If baptism in water helps in that or in the commitment made then it is good. The problem with your above statement is it is circular - we believe it means to baptise in water, because Jesus commanded us to baptise in water. Where does He give such a command? In Matt 28. I don't know of anywhere where Jesus specifically states to baptise with water. Maybe you might know of a verse.


What God does before, during, and after the acts is performed is up to God. Since both Paul and Peter stated the purpose and effectiveness of water baptism, I'll go with understanding that God expects us to submit to it and let God handle His end of it.
What God does is ALWAYS up to Him. However we have a responsibility, we are His eyes, hands and feet on earth. He answers in response to our prayers. If we never pray for healing then we shouldn't expect much healing. If we never thank God for His blessings, then we shouldn't expect much blessing. We are to ask for more of His fruit in our lives, for the gifts of the Spirit. We are instructed to bless one another, we are to understand the elementary teachings of the laying on of hands.

mailmandan
Dec 13th 2013, 12:30 PM
We would have to answer in the plural, right? We have of course Jesus' submission to John's baptism. But then Jesus speaks of another baptism at the close of His ministry, for example: Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! We know that this baptism is the model the Apostle Paul uses in Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:10-12.

In Luke 12:50, I understand this baptism that Jesus was distressed over was His baptism of being immersed into suffering, namely His death on the cross.

episkopos
Dec 13th 2013, 02:34 PM
In Luke 12:50, I understand this baptism that Jesus was distressed over was His baptism of being immersed into suffering, namely His death on the cross. If we see baptism as a cleansing and a purging then we can better understand what a baptism in fire is. Jesus Christ undertook to be cleansed in His flesh the way we are also to be. He is human after all as we are (as well as being divine). He shares our humanity and offers us His divinity so that we are as He is in this world.

watchinginawe
Dec 13th 2013, 03:43 PM
In Luke 12:50, I understand this baptism that Jesus was distressed over was His baptism of being immersed into suffering, namely His death on the cross.

Agreed, including (at least as baptism is concerned) His betrayal, false conviction, suffering and death on the cross, burial, and resurrection.

Boo
Dec 14th 2013, 11:21 AM
Though I agree that the context points out that people do have that tendency, Paul wasn't saying someone else baptised on my behalf. That is a later idea being brought into the text, based around the other point. It is a possible solution, but not one from scripture.

You are correct. Nobody ever baptizes anyone on another man's behalf. It is always in the name of Jesus. Although, as we see, it is also in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Nobody baptizes in anyone else's name.

1 Corinthians 1:11-17 (HCSB)

11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by members of Chloe’s household, that there is rivalry among you.
12 What I am saying is this: Each of you says, “I’m with Paul,” or “I’m with Apollos,” or “I’m with Cephas,” or “I’m with Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
16 I did, in fact, baptize the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t know if I baptized anyone else.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to evangelize—not with clever words, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied ⌊of its effect⌋.

It is apparent that a conflict started based on who did the baptisms. Paul wanted to be left out of that. Since we are going to have to believe that Paul was obedient to Jesus, he must have ensured that those who believed were baptized - by someone else.



1) You know how a person can immerse a person in water. However how do they immerse them in the Name of Jesus? There is a requirement for having Jesus yourself and His authority.
2) Do you have the Holy Spirit in you? Do you have the authority as per Jesus command in Matt 28 to immerse people in the Name of the Holy Spirit? If so then you CAN and even MUST immerse them in the Name of the Holy Spirit.
3) Understanding what it means to immerse someone in the Name of someone else is at the heart of understanding this. It isn't about outward actions. A non-believer can do those.
4) Does God answer your prayers? Does that include the Holy Spirit? This is a matter of your standing with God. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to us.
5) we are told in the Bible that Jesus immerses in the Holy Spirit. The fact that I am acting on His behalf doesn't stop it being Him doing it. We have numerous occasions where the disciples laid on hands for the impartation of the Holy Spirit. This was no different than laying on of hands for healing or for anything else God was going to do. It happens because God is in it. It is according to His will. If it isn't then it doesn't happen.

I agree with what you have said here. We also lay hands on people when we baptize them. People dunk each other in swimming pools as the time, but not in the name of Jesus.



Jesus as we read NEVER baptised anyone, also He NEVER taught His disciples to baptise with water. Baptising with water was what John the Baptist did and was an act of repentance. Jesus never told anyone to be baptised. All He taught was repent. Baptism isn't wrong, but it is the repentance that Jesus wants. If baptism in water helps in that or in the commitment made then it is good. The problem with your above statement is it is circular - we believe it means to baptise in water, because Jesus commanded us to baptise in water. Where does He give such a command? In Matt 28. I don't know of anywhere where Jesus specifically states to baptise with water. Maybe you might know of a verse.

Jesus never baptized anyone and never taught his disciples to baptize with water? I have considered you a very knowledgable person, brother, so I am a bit surprised at what you have written above.

I would also say that Jesus taught many people to baptize with water, and within the same lifetime of His Apostles, they taught everyone else to baptize. That is why they did baptize believers in water.

John 3:22 (HCSB)

22 After this, Jesus and His disciples went to the Judean countryside, where He spent time with them and baptized.

John 4:1-2 (HCSB)

1 When Jesus knew that the Pharisees heard He was making and baptizing more disciples than John
2 (though Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),

Acts 8:36-38 (HCSB)

36 As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” [
37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Acts 10:46-48 (HCSB)

46 For they heard them speaking in ⌊other⌋ languages and declaring the greatness of God. Then Peter responded,
47 “Can anyone withhold water and prevent these people from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for a few days.

This all did not stop with the closure of the New Testament. The Early Church Fathers also mentioned water baptism in their letters as well. Baptism most certainly included immersion in water.


What God does is ALWAYS up to Him. However we have a responsibility, we are His eyes, hands and feet on earth. He answers in response to our prayers. If we never pray for healing then we shouldn't expect much healing. If we never thank God for His blessings, then we shouldn't expect much blessing. We are to ask for more of His fruit in our lives, for the gifts of the Spirit. We are instructed to bless one another, we are to understand the elementary teachings of the laying on of hands.

I do thank you for taking time to respond, brother. I am assuming from your post that you do not immerse anyone in water, but you lay hands on them in order to baptize them with the Holy Spirit and call that baptizing in the name of Jesus. Is that correct?

Vakeros
Dec 14th 2013, 03:09 PM
You are correct. Nobody ever baptizes anyone on another man's behalf. It is always in the name of Jesus. Although, as we see, it is also in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Nobody baptizes in anyone else's name.
1 Corinthians 1:11-17 (HCSB)
It is apparent that a conflict started based on who did the baptisms. Paul wanted to be left out of that. Since we are going to have to believe that Paul was obedient to Jesus, he must have ensured that those who believed were baptized - by someone else.
Sorry Boo, but the text doesn't point to that scenario. Paul didn't stop baptising because of the conflict. He ALREADY wasn't baptising with water. You are using circular reasoning. You are stating Paul must have baptised with water, because this is what Jesus commanded. So someone baptised the people which Paul led to Christ in order that the command would be fulfilled. The text doesn't state that. It is a possibility, except people would still have said, I was baptised under Paul's authority. We do things all the time on behalf of someone else.


I agree with what you have said here. We also lay hands on people when we baptize them. People dunk each other in swimming pools as the time, but not in the name of Jesus.
Nice to agree on something.


Jesus never baptized anyone and never taught his disciples to baptize with water? I have considered you a very knowledgable person, brother, so I am a bit surprised at what you have written above.
I would also say that Jesus taught many people to baptize with water, and within the same lifetime of His Apostles, they taught everyone else to baptize. That is why they did baptize believers in water.
John 3:22 (HCSB)
John 4:1-2 (HCSB)
Do you notice what occurs here? Does Jesus actually baptise anyone? The quote from John 4:2 shows He doesn't. Did Jesus command His disciples to baptise? Not mentioned anywhere either. Does He allow the baptism to happen? Yes He does. So the question then should be why does He allow or possibly encourage the disciples to baptise in water.
When you answer this then things may become a bit clearer.
Water baptism is explained in different places, initially as one of repentance. This in fact is how Peter declares it in Acts 2. Later it is also seen as a symbol of our union with Christ. When you find a verse where Jesus says "baptise in water" I would be interested because I haven't found one. It isn't part of coming to Him.


Acts 8:36-38 (HCSB)
Acts 10:46-48 (HCSB)
I don't disagree that the early disciples did baptise with water. What God showed them was that baptism in water wasn't necessary in anyway for some one to be saved or receive the Holy Spirit. IOW they continued doing what they had been doing BEFORE Jesus died and rose again. It is a natural and normal thing to do. Yet we must understand what water baptism originally represented and then how it changed and also what it isn't. The disciples got things wrong even after Pentecost.


This all did not stop with the closure of the New Testament. The Early Church Fathers also mentioned water baptism in their letters as well. Baptism most certainly included immersion in water.
I agree. We baptise people in water in our church with full immersion and we aren't a Baptist church. There is indeed a place for water baptism. It is a useful, helpful thing to do as long as the form doesn't replace the understanding of what it is about.


I do thank you for taking time to respond, brother. I am assuming from your post that you do not immerse anyone in water, but you lay hands on them in order to baptize them with the Holy Spirit and call that baptizing in the name of Jesus. Is that correct?
No, it isn't correct. I do see a place for water baptism. I myself was baptised in a mountain stream (it was cold). But what is far more important than water baptism is being immersed in Him. Abiding in Him. Him being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the "one" baptism. Water baptism merely points to this true baptism - the Baptism that Jesus gives, the one where we are born of the Holy Spirit. John 3 hopefully brings clarity. It isn't an outward form - nothing which we do NOT even through the laying on of hands. It is as a person receives the greatest gift of Jesus into their life. That for me is the "one" baptism. ALL other baptisms then are around it - water, fire and Holy Spirit in power.
Notice also that the baptism in fire can occur many times as can the Holy Spirit in power. An example from scripture is found in Acts 4:31 where the whole meeting place shook and people were filled with boldness, not only the original recipients.
I do hope my comments bring clarity to what I am sharing. Too often it becomes this or that, when Christ says do this, but you can do that also.

Boo
Dec 15th 2013, 01:44 PM
Sorry Boo, but the text doesn't point to that scenario. Paul didn't stop baptising because of the conflict. He ALREADY wasn't baptising with water. You are using circular reasoning. You are stating Paul must have baptised with water, because this is what Jesus commanded. So someone baptised the people which Paul led to Christ in order that the command would be fulfilled. The text doesn't state that. It is a possibility, except people would still have said, I was baptised under Paul's authority. We do things all the time on behalf of someone else.


Nice to agree on something.


Do you notice what occurs here? Does Jesus actually baptise anyone? The quote from John 4:2 shows He doesn't. Did Jesus command His disciples to baptise? Not mentioned anywhere either. Does He allow the baptism to happen? Yes He does. So the question then should be why does He allow or possibly encourage the disciples to baptise in water.
When you answer this then things may become a bit clearer.
Water baptism is explained in different places, initially as one of repentance. This in fact is how Peter declares it in Acts 2. Later it is also seen as a symbol of our union with Christ. When you find a verse where Jesus says "baptise in water" I would be interested because I haven't found one. It isn't part of coming to Him.


I don't disagree that the early disciples did baptise with water. What God showed them was that baptism in water wasn't necessary in anyway for some one to be saved or receive the Holy Spirit. IOW they continued doing what they had been doing BEFORE Jesus died and rose again. It is a natural and normal thing to do. Yet we must understand what water baptism originally represented and then how it changed and also what it isn't. The disciples got things wrong even after Pentecost.


I agree. We baptise people in water in our church with full immersion and we aren't a Baptist church. There is indeed a place for water baptism. It is a useful, helpful thing to do as long as the form doesn't replace the understanding of what it is about.


No, it isn't correct. I do see a place for water baptism. I myself was baptised in a mountain stream (it was cold). But what is far more important than water baptism is being immersed in Him. Abiding in Him. Him being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the "one" baptism. Water baptism merely points to this true baptism - the Baptism that Jesus gives, the one where we are born of the Holy Spirit. John 3 hopefully brings clarity. It isn't an outward form - nothing which we do NOT even through the laying on of hands. It is as a person receives the greatest gift of Jesus into their life. That for me is the "one" baptism. ALL other baptisms then are around it - water, fire and Holy Spirit in power.
Notice also that the baptism in fire can occur many times as can the Holy Spirit in power. An example from scripture is found in Acts 4:31 where the whole meeting place shook and people were filled with boldness, not only the original recipients.
I do hope my comments bring clarity to what I am sharing. Too often it becomes this or that, when Christ says do this, but you can do that also.

No, my brother, I am not using circular reasoning. I am reading the story as written and understanding the best that I can.

I feel that we too often try to dissect the bible like an erector set that kids play with. We want to move pieces around and attempt to make one thing into another.

If I am wrong, perhaps God will straighten me out. There is a great amount of evidence that leads to what I believe. I don't think that we suddenly, in the 21st Century,finally understand the truth about God's will for us. I know that there are theologians who feel that way, but I just can't get there.

I see that there is one baptism - not two. I'm afraid that it is too simple for me to then argue about how many more there are. Dunking doesn't make a Christian; God does. His timing may be based on when one is obedient. That is entirely up to Him.

grams
Dec 15th 2013, 09:32 PM
Eph. 2:
8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


9

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Vakeros
Dec 15th 2013, 10:28 PM
No, my brother, I am not using circular reasoning. I am reading the story as written and understanding the best that I can.

I feel that we too often try to dissect the bible like an erector set that kids play with. We want to move pieces around and attempt to make one thing into another.

If I am wrong, perhaps God will straighten me out. There is a great amount of evidence that leads to what I believe. I don't think that we suddenly, in the 21st Century,finally understand the truth about God's will for us. I know that there are theologians who feel that way, but I just can't get there.

I see that there is one baptism - not two. I'm afraid that it is too simple for me to then argue about how many more there are. Dunking doesn't make a Christian; God does. His timing may be based on when one is obedient. That is entirely up to Him.
I also see that there is ONE crucial baptism - and it isn't water baptism. It never has been. However people prefer form over truth. We basically had to deal with the legacy of centuries of teaching which stated that this was the induction into the church - if you aren't in the church you aren't saved. We have moved on from that but it still has a hold. This is why it is important to always go back to scripture.
We need to see what the apostles did and understand why they did, and didn't do things. The way the story is written by Paul, is that as apostle to the Gentiles it was of very little value to baptise in water. He didn't do it, as far as I can find he never taught that people must baptise in water either. He did explain the symbolism within water baptism and it is within the understanding of baptisms (plural), but it isn't the singular baptism when he wrote of one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Being born again, the baptism of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, is the one baptism. All other baptisms then point to that one.
The baptism in water points to it.
The baptism in fire points to it.
The baptism in His Name points to it.
The baptism in the Holy Spirit points to it.

All of them also DEMAND that one is already baptised in Him - that is born again. Without which there is nothing in the other baptisms.

I am not trying to make one thing something else. I have highlighted how tradition does cause false thinking and we need to always evaluate tradition in the light of His word. Perhaps you don't like the idea of baptism meaning being born again. John 3 hints at it. when you see the deeper truth behind water baptism then hopefully it will make sense to you.
As a final point - dunking NEVER makes you one of the elect. It is always through receiving His gift by faith. Jesus gives it through making us new.

percho
Dec 16th 2013, 02:58 AM
I also see that there is ONE crucial baptism - and it isn't water baptism. It never has been. However people prefer form over truth. We basically had to deal with the legacy of centuries of teaching which stated that this was the induction into the church - if you aren't in the church you aren't saved. We have moved on from that but it still has a hold. This is why it is important to always go back to scripture.
We need to see what the apostles did and understand why they did, and didn't do things. The way the story is written by Paul, is that as apostle to the Gentiles it was of very little value to baptise in water. He didn't do it, as far as I can find he never taught that people must baptise in water either. He did explain the symbolism within water baptism and it is within the understanding of baptisms (plural), but it isn't the singular baptism when he wrote of one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Being born again, the baptism of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, is the one baptism. All other baptisms then point to that one.
The baptism in water points to it.
The baptism in fire points to it.
The baptism in His Name points to it.
The baptism in the Holy Spirit points to it.

All of them also DEMAND that one is already baptised in Him - that is born again. Without which there is nothing in the other baptisms.

I am not trying to make one thing something else. I have highlighted how tradition does cause false thinking and we need to always evaluate tradition in the light of His word. Perhaps you don't like the idea of baptism meaning being born again. John 3 hints at it. when you see the deeper truth behind water baptism then hopefully it will make sense to you.
As a final point - dunking NEVER makes you one of the elect. It is always through receiving His gift by faith. Jesus gives it through making us new.

I agree with you, you may not agree with me. I would like to ask a few questions and maybe make a few statements.

But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Luke 12:50
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? Matt 20:22

Are those speaking of the same baptism?

Are those underlines speaking of the same thing and is that emboldened speaking of the same thing and are they different the underlined and the emboldened?

I ask for I do not know if you have read my posts but I believe the word of God would show the drinking of the cup speaks of the agony of approaching death inclusive of death, whereas the baptism is something different. I believe you even see it pictured in the water baptism of Jesus. He allowed to be suffered unto death, put under the water. Then being baptized with life he comes straightway up out of the water. Compare to Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up. What happened next? Matt 3:16 lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: Compare Acts 2:34 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, I also contend Titus 3:5 is speaking of the baptism of Jesus that saves us. Washing of regeneration and renewing of Holy Spirit. Proof being if Jesus hasn't been washed of regeneration we are still in our sins. 1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Think about that phrase; renewing of holy Spirit. Are we born of the Holy Spirit? We can not be renewed with something we never had, can we? However I believe the following has to take place for us to also be renewed with the Holy Spirit. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Romans 8:11

Then in verse 23 of Matt. 20 Jesus states: Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: -----

Many verses speak of we Christians must suffer as Christ suffered even unto death, Example 2 Cor. 4
Continuing on in Chapter 8 of Romans is the adoption to wit the redemption of the body our baptism? For those who have died in Christ will it be the renewing of the Holy Spirit by which they are washed of regeneration? I believe even the passage about building the church shows this. The gates of Hades (suffering unto death) shall not prevail against her.

Boo
Dec 16th 2013, 10:59 AM
I also see that there is ONE crucial baptism - and it isn't water baptism. It never has been. However people prefer form over truth. We basically had to deal with the legacy of centuries of teaching which stated that this was the induction into the church - if you aren't in the church you aren't saved. We have moved on from that but it still has a hold. This is why it is important to always go back to scripture.
We need to see what the apostles did and understand why they did, and didn't do things. The way the story is written by Paul, is that as apostle to the Gentiles it was of very little value to baptise in water. He didn't do it, as far as I can find he never taught that people must baptise in water either. He did explain the symbolism within water baptism and it is within the understanding of baptisms (plural), but it isn't the singular baptism when he wrote of one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Being born again, the baptism of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, is the one baptism. All other baptisms then point to that one.
The baptism in water points to it.
The baptism in fire points to it.
The baptism in His Name points to it.
The baptism in the Holy Spirit points to it.

All of them also DEMAND that one is already baptised in Him - that is born again. Without which there is nothing in the other baptisms.

I am not trying to make one thing something else. I have highlighted how tradition does cause false thinking and we need to always evaluate tradition in the light of His word. Perhaps you don't like the idea of baptism meaning being born again. John 3 hints at it. when you see the deeper truth behind water baptism then hopefully it will make sense to you.
As a final point - dunking NEVER makes you one of the elect. It is always through receiving His gift by faith. Jesus gives it through making us new.

My brother, you do have a very good point.

We do hold to tradition in many ways. Some traditions reach back only a hundred years, some five hundred, and some for 2000. Water baptism goes back 2000 years. However, the idea that water baptism is not valid goes back only 400.

Peter taught water baptism. You say that Paul did not - but that he explained the significance of it.

Philip taught water baptism and the Ethiopian submitted to it. Why would he do that if the Apostles did not teach him that it was necessary?

I think you and I disconnect as I see 2000 year-old understanding more valid than 400 year-old understanding. I also see that we must listen to all the books in the Epistles and not only the words of Paul.

By the way, grams, baptism in not a work.

grams
Dec 16th 2013, 11:34 AM
Hey Boo,

We have a lady at our eye glass place and her name is Boo !

*************************************

We no longer need to be Baptized ! We have it all upon belief and being saved.

There was a time past ~ Buy now ~ and Ages to come..........

Things are and will be different in these times .

Things changed after Jesus went to the cross for our sins.

And when we are called home things will change again.

I did not know this , till I got into Gods word .

Obfuscate
Dec 16th 2013, 04:02 PM
1 Timothy 3:15 - but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism

Nicene Creed

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins [A.D. 325]

The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian

[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life" (On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Origen

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Ambrose of Milan

The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ's blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.... "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (On Abraham 2:11:79-84 [A.D. 387]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).

Augustine

"There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized" (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).

Tertullian

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

[B]John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

Vakeros
Dec 16th 2013, 07:23 PM
My brother, you do have a very good point.
We do hold to tradition in many ways. Some traditions reach back only a hundred years, some five hundred, and some for 2000. Water baptism goes back 2000 years. However, the idea that water baptism is not valid goes back only 400.
I am not sure that is completely correct - I do get your point though. For me I need to understand what really was the original teaching and see if it was corrupted within the following years or whether there was a change in purpose. I see that it changed purpose to become the badge of entry.

However let's see what John the Baptist taught about water baptism.

Joh 1:25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptising, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
Joh 1:26 John answered them, "I baptise with water, but among you stands one you do not know,
Joh 1:27 even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."
Joh 1:28 These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptising.
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.'
Joh 1:31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptising with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."

So you see the first purpose of baptism, was to prepare people and bring about the revelation of Jesus. That has happened, and is a very valid reason to continue baptising. It is one of the reasons I do it.

John 4 is a further discussion which is revealing as to what Jesus saw as important about water. In fact the first 5 chapters all deal with water in different ways, healing, living water, birth water, repentance and revelation.
In fact the following chapter also deals with water, with Jesus in command of the water (the waves and the storm)

Luk 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

This is the second reason for baptism, which we know doesn't bring forgiveness any more than sacrificing an animal does, or being circumcised.
It is interesting that this seems to be what the apostles did when they were baptising originally. Peter does state that you should be baptised. He does this in his first sermon. Note though what he says about it:

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptised 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."

This baptism then is one of repentance and gives assurance of forgiveness and the receipt of the Holy Spirit. yet note the Holy Spirit is then received separately to this baptism in future occasions.


Peter taught water baptism. You say that Paul did not - but that he explained the significance of it.
Philip taught water baptism and the Ethiopian submitted to it. Why would he do that if the Apostles did not teach him that it was necessary?
Do we do things because it is what is done or because it is necessary? We know that forgiveness of sins doesn't occur through obedience alone, but through Jesus. We don't know what the Eunuch understood beyond the fact that he knew about what had occurred in Jerusalem. Here we see the act spreading.


I think you and I disconnect as I see 2000 year-old understanding more valid than 400 year-old understanding. I also see that we must listen to all the books in the Epistles and not only the words of Paul.
I don't have a 400 year old understanding. I don't base what I say on any tradition whether 2000 or 400 or 100. This is purely from my own walk with God. I see that the 2,000 year old tradition is actually one that changed from the first meaning, to a following meaning which Paul, as an apostle didn't see as necessary to do. I don't follow the traditions of the RCC or the orthodox church. I try not to follow any traditions of men. I try instead to follow what Jesus actually commanded. If I was following tradition I may well be trying to keep the law, rather than live by faith in His grace.
Blessings

Boo
Dec 17th 2013, 11:23 AM
I am not sure that is completely correct - I do get your point though. For me I need to understand what really was the original teaching and see if it was corrupted within the following years or whether there was a change in purpose. I see that it changed purpose to become the badge of entry.

However let's see what John the Baptist taught about water baptism.

Joh 1:25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptising, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
Joh 1:26 John answered them, "I baptise with water, but among you stands one you do not know,
Joh 1:27 even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."
Joh 1:28 These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptising.
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.'
Joh 1:31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptising with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."

So you see the first purpose of baptism, was to prepare people and bring about the revelation of Jesus. That has happened, and is a very valid reason to continue baptising. It is one of the reasons I do it.

John 4 is a further discussion which is revealing as to what Jesus saw as important about water. In fact the first 5 chapters all deal with water in different ways, healing, living water, birth water, repentance and revelation.
In fact the following chapter also deals with water, with Jesus in command of the water (the waves and the storm)

Luk 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

This is the second reason for baptism, which we know doesn't bring forgiveness any more than sacrificing an animal does, or being circumcised.
It is interesting that this seems to be what the apostles did when they were baptising originally. Peter does state that you should be baptised. He does this in his first sermon. Note though what he says about it:

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptised 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."

This baptism then is one of repentance and gives assurance of forgiveness and the receipt of the Holy Spirit. yet note the Holy Spirit is then received separately to this baptism in future occasions.


Do we do things because it is what is done or because it is necessary? We know that forgiveness of sins doesn't occur through obedience alone, but through Jesus. We don't know what the Eunuch understood beyond the fact that he knew about what had occurred in Jerusalem. Here we see the act spreading.


I don't have a 400 year old understanding. I don't base what I say on any tradition whether 2000 or 400 or 100. This is purely from my own walk with God. I see that the 2,000 year old tradition is actually one that changed from the first meaning, to a following meaning which Paul, as an apostle didn't see as necessary to do. I don't follow the traditions of the RCC or the orthodox church. I try not to follow any traditions of men. I try instead to follow what Jesus actually commanded. If I was following tradition I may well be trying to keep the law, rather than live by faith in His grace.
Blessings

Thank you for your time, brother. I, too, do not hold with doctrines taught to men. When I discovered that those who attempted to teach me doctrines could not address the bible verses that both supported and defeated the doctrines they taught, I sought the truth for myself. I found that those who attempted to teach me did not know why they believed based on the bible.

I do not place any stock in events where the gifts of the Holy Spirit came at a separate time from baptism in history. History does not determine current requirements as much as instruction does. I have no reason to believe that initial forgiveness does not happen during baptism when I have verses that say that it does. I do have verses that indicate forgiveness can happen after the initial period after we become children of God. We can use our imaginations to decide that we know of another truth, but the verses still exist.

I fail to see anywhere that baptism has been relegated to nothing more than an act of obedience, and now grams is saying that the requirement to be baptized has been eliminated all together. I don't see that anywhere either.

Other than drawing conclusions on a vague statement by Paul, do you have any reason to suggest that Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and John 3:5 are invalid? Do we have a reason to think that Paul was merely whispering in his hat when he wrote Romans 6? Those verses cannot be dismissed in my studies, and they keep me seeing baptism as an act that is not optional. I would believe that there are repercussions for refusal to be baptized. I don't know exactly what God will do to a person who professes belief but refuses obedience. As in everything else, God controls that and I merely obey.

The safe solution for me is to baptize all who profess acceptance of Jesus as Lord. I will never tell them that they don't have to or that it holds no significance.

Since you baptize believers as well, I don't see that we have a problem at all.

God bless.

Vakeros
Dec 17th 2013, 02:02 PM
I do not place any stock in events where the gifts of the Holy Spirit came at a separate time from baptism in history. History does not determine current requirements as much as instruction does.
I agree with this, yet you do take your instruction from the history recorded in Acts. I will deal with specific instruction in a moment, but a BIG reason why people baptise is because Peter said "Repent and be baptised... for the forgiveness of sins..." What is often missed though is that it is "In the Name of Jesus". This is the TRUE baptism. The water being an outward act. It is IN HIM that the forgiveness occurs.


I have no reason to believe that initial forgiveness does not happen during baptism when I have verses that say that it does. I do have verses that indicate forgiveness can happen after the initial period after we become children of God. We can use our imaginations to decide that we know of another truth, but the verses still exist.
Actually, I cannot find a single verse that says the initial forgiveness happens during baptism. What you find is that people who repent (and thus foregiven) are baptised, but the forgiveness occurs upon the repentance. In every case it is the repentance that MUST occur in order to receive forgiveness. This is why the bandit on the cross was forgiven, because he repented. Water baptism is nothing more than an outward act for something inward. Just as circumcision is an outward act of an inward act.


I fail to see anywhere that baptism has been relegated to nothing more than an act of obedience, and now grams is saying that the requirement to be baptized has been eliminated all together. I don't see that anywhere either.
Actually I can't find anywhere that water baptism was ever a requirement for forgiveness. It is repentance that is the requirement. Jesus teaches this. Does Jesus ever teach you must be water baptised? No. That by itself should make you stop and think. Let me move onto your verses and see what water they hold (pun intended :rolleyes:)


Other than drawing conclusions on a vague statement by Paul, do you have any reason to suggest that Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and John 3:5 are invalid? Do we have a reason to think that Paul was merely whispering in his hat when he wrote Romans 6? Those verses cannot be dismissed in my studies, and they keep me seeing baptism as an act that is not optional. I would believe that there are repercussions for refusal to be baptized.


I don't know exactly what God will do to a person who professes belief but refuses obedience. As in everything else, God controls that and I merely obey.
I totally agree that obedience is required. The question is what does God require of you? Is water baptism a requirement? The early church had all sorts of issues dealing with Gentiles. Note what was decided in Acts 15 as the instructions for Gentiles:
Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

Here is the nutshell - obedience to what is required. In this case they speak of circumcision. It has repercussions though on water baptism as we will connect later.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Note Paul doesn't appeal to baptism as having replaced circumcision and nor does anyone else.

Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Here we have the total list of what is required of gentile believers. Not a long list. How many people eat meat with blood in it? How many do actually eat from what has been sacrificed to idols? In fact the only one that people really still hold to is the final one, and even that is being watered down. Yet this isn't the law. It is what is advised in order to live right. Of these three only the "what has been strangled" seems to come from Mosaic Law. The others pre-date it.

Having set a basis for what the Earliest Church Council thought is required, and which doesn't include baptism, I will now deal with each of your listed passages.

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptised 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.

I have already dealt with this verse above. It is the dual response of repentance and being In Jesus. This is what brings forgiveness of sins.

Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Note this is the corollary to:
Act 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
Act 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptised;

Note that the healing and filling of the Holy Spirit occurred BEFORE he was baptised. He had already repented.
Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
This is also the same testimony, but no mention of being baptised is given. Nor within Jesus' command to Paul is any mention of baptism made. Now it can be argued that the phrase "forgiveness of sins" refers to baptism. So let's look further away from actually acts of baptism to teachings on baptism.

1Pe 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Now here we automatically assume the word baptism means water baptism. Yet what is Peter doing? He is contrasting an outward action with what is more important, the inward action.
The baptism is but an appeal for a good conscience - yet it saves how? Through the resurrection of Jesus. So Peter teaches baptism here as being like the ark.
Does the ark have the power to save? No, it is God's patience and will that saves. It is an act of obedience on the part of Noah. It is the appeal of a repentant person with water baptism. Can we have this attitude without being baptised in water? Definitely. In fact water baptism is but a one off occurrence, yet we are to live daily lives of obedience.
Is Peter teaching here that you aren't saved if you aren't baptised? No, he is merely explaining what it shows and what it is for. It ties into the ceremonial washing of the OT.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

This passage is much debated. What I gain from it is very simple. In John 3:6 there are two births - one of flesh and one of Spirit. It is directly associated with the preceding verse. In John 3:5 we also have two births. One of water, our physical birth. One of the Spirit, our spiritual new birth.

This passage does NOT speak of water baptism. If we didn't have verse 6 then I can understand seeing the "born of water and Spirit" as referring to a single birth. Yet because we do have verse 6 and because we know from Acts that people ARE born of the Spirit without being baptised in water, then we know they are two separate births.
Everyone is born of water - even when Caesarian, even test tube babies. It isn't pure water, but it is what Jesus refers to here. It is actually reading something else outside of context for it to be about water baptism.

Finally for now Romans 6.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 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.
Here we have water baptism assumed. Yet here it states a baptism into death.

Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Were we physically crucified? So is Paul using physical acts to speak of what is going on at a deeper level? I think so. Here again if we replace the word with immerse then we see that the key isn't anything to do with water, but all to do with sharing with Him. We are immersed in His death and raised into new life. The water baptism picture points to a spiritual picture - NOT that the spiritual occurs because of the physical, but rather it is an outward expression. In fact the whole chapter speaks of our outward acts and NOT about a one off event.


The safe solution for me is to baptize all who profess acceptance of Jesus as Lord. I will never tell them that they don't have to or that it holds no significance.
Since you baptize believers as well, I don't see that we have a problem at all.
God bless.
I don't think we have a problem - however I will never tell them they MUST be baptised. That puts the law in place of grace. Baptism has taken the place of circumcision.
Instead I will teach them the meaning of baptism, the key facet of being in Him. I will then look at various forms of baptism within the Bible such as water baptism. If then one says "Can I be baptised?" I would baptise them being assured of their understanding.

watchinginawe
Dec 17th 2013, 02:04 PM
I do not place any stock in events where the gifts of the Holy Spirit came at a separate time from baptism in history. History does not determine current requirements as much as instruction does.

This baffles me in the middle of that post Boo. Your all inclusiveness of "any" apparently includes those events recorded in Scripture! :dunno:

Boo
Dec 18th 2013, 11:29 AM
I agree with this, yet you do take your instruction from the history recorded in Acts. I will deal with specific instruction in a moment, but a BIG reason why people baptise is because Peter said "Repent and be baptised... for the forgiveness of sins..." What is often missed though is that it is "In the Name of Jesus". This is the TRUE baptism. The water being an outward act. It is IN HIM that the forgiveness occurs.


Actually, I cannot find a single verse that says the initial forgiveness happens during baptism. What you find is that people who repent (and thus foregiven) are baptised, but the forgiveness occurs upon the repentance. In every case it is the repentance that MUST occur in order to receive forgiveness. This is why the bandit on the cross was forgiven, because he repented. Water baptism is nothing more than an outward act for something inward. Just as circumcision is an outward act of an inward act.


Actually I can't find anywhere that water baptism was ever a requirement for forgiveness. It is repentance that is the requirement. Jesus teaches this. Does Jesus ever teach you must be water baptised? No. That by itself should make you stop and think. Let me move onto your verses and see what water they hold (pun intended :rolleyes:)




I totally agree that obedience is required. The question is what does God require of you? Is water baptism a requirement? The early church had all sorts of issues dealing with Gentiles. Note what was decided in Acts 15 as the instructions for Gentiles:
Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

Here is the nutshell - obedience to what is required. In this case they speak of circumcision. It has repercussions though on water baptism as we will connect later.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Note Paul doesn't appeal to baptism as having replaced circumcision and nor does anyone else.

Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Here we have the total list of what is required of gentile believers. Not a long list. How many people eat meat with blood in it? How many do actually eat from what has been sacrificed to idols? In fact the only one that people really still hold to is the final one, and even that is being watered down. Yet this isn't the law. It is what is advised in order to live right. Of these three only the "what has been strangled" seems to come from Mosaic Law. The others pre-date it.

Having set a basis for what the Earliest Church Council thought is required, and which doesn't include baptism, I will now deal with each of your listed passages.

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptised 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.

I have already dealt with this verse above. It is the dual response of repentance and being In Jesus. This is what brings forgiveness of sins.

Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Note this is the corollary to:
Act 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
Act 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptised;

Note that the healing and filling of the Holy Spirit occurred BEFORE he was baptised. He had already repented.
Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
This is also the same testimony, but no mention of being baptised is given. Nor within Jesus' command to Paul is any mention of baptism made. Now it can be argued that the phrase "forgiveness of sins" refers to baptism. So let's look further away from actually acts of baptism to teachings on baptism.

1Pe 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Now here we automatically assume the word baptism means water baptism. Yet what is Peter doing? He is contrasting an outward action with what is more important, the inward action.
The baptism is but an appeal for a good conscience - yet it saves how? Through the resurrection of Jesus. So Peter teaches baptism here as being like the ark.
Does the ark have the power to save? No, it is God's patience and will that saves. It is an act of obedience on the part of Noah. It is the appeal of a repentant person with water baptism. Can we have this attitude without being baptised in water? Definitely. In fact water baptism is but a one off occurrence, yet we are to live daily lives of obedience.
Is Peter teaching here that you aren't saved if you aren't baptised? No, he is merely explaining what it shows and what it is for. It ties into the ceremonial washing of the OT.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

This passage is much debated. What I gain from it is very simple. In John 3:6 there are two births - one of flesh and one of Spirit. It is directly associated with the preceding verse. In John 3:5 we also have two births. One of water, our physical birth. One of the Spirit, our spiritual new birth.

This passage does NOT speak of water baptism. If we didn't have verse 6 then I can understand seeing the "born of water and Spirit" as referring to a single birth. Yet because we do have verse 6 and because we know from Acts that people ARE born of the Spirit without being baptised in water, then we know they are two separate births.
Everyone is born of water - even when Caesarian, even test tube babies. It isn't pure water, but it is what Jesus refers to here. It is actually reading something else outside of context for it to be about water baptism.

Finally for now Romans 6.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 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.
Here we have water baptism assumed. Yet here it states a baptism into death.

Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Were we physically crucified? So is Paul using physical acts to speak of what is going on at a deeper level? I think so. Here again if we replace the word with immerse then we see that the key isn't anything to do with water, but all to do with sharing with Him. We are immersed in His death and raised into new life. The water baptism picture points to a spiritual picture - NOT that the spiritual occurs because of the physical, but rather it is an outward expression. In fact the whole chapter speaks of our outward acts and NOT about a one off event.


I don't think we have a problem - however I will never tell them they MUST be baptised. That puts the law in place of grace. Baptism has taken the place of circumcision.
Instead I will teach them the meaning of baptism, the key facet of being in Him. I will then look at various forms of baptism within the Bible such as water baptism. If then one says "Can I be baptised?" I would baptise them being assured of their understanding.

You have gone to a very lengthy discussion to end up at the same place that I am at. Neither one of us will now teach people to skip the baptism part, right?

We are to repent and be baptized.

Why we strive so hard to separate those two in a huge question. If we did not attempt to separate those two, would be even be having this discussion?

Is it imperative that we can identify the split second when our evil record is wiped away? Why would that be - so that we can stop our obedience and go home? Perhaps we want to press on only to the second that regeneration happens so we will know we are good to go and can cease whatever we are doing.

Let me state this in bigger letters now, because it seems that any time I bring it up; people don't know what my actual position on this is:

God can save whomever we wants without any water being involved.

I know that. I am merely stating the position that the verses in the bible take based on my understanding of English. I detest having to parse words and play the dictionary game and end up teaching people that they do not have the intellect to understand their bibles. That is how sheep get led astray. We convince them that we alone have true understanding so they should just put their bibles up and listen to us. Isn't that how cults start?

I think it is far better than they read a bible they understand and then act on it. I think churches today would be flourishing if people actually had a bible that they can understand and they actually read them.

Keep belief, commitment, repentance and baptism together and all will be well. When we start separating them, things go sour.

Boo
Dec 18th 2013, 11:35 AM
This baffles me in the middle of that post Boo. Your all inclusiveness of "any" apparently includes those events recorded in Scripture! :dunno:

No, actually, when people choose to ignore verses in the bible that were instructions to someone, their basis on modifying or ignoring those verses is that they seem to identify another place in the bible where it did not happen that way. Rather than an instructional verse being heeded, it gets ignored because such and such happened differently.

The thief on the cross was promised paradise - so baptism is not required.

Cornelius spoke in tongues - so he must have been baptized by the Holy Spirit already.

The early church sold their excess and shared the wealth, so Christians are not supposed to have anything.

People sold their lands and then failed to give it all to the church, so they died. We are supposed to give everything to the church.

These little acts of history become commands, regardless of instructions actually given in the bible. I place priority on instructions.

shepherdsword
Dec 18th 2013, 11:59 AM
God can save whomever we wants without any water being involved.



A good point Boo. I agree fully. However,we are to be baptized. It is a command. While my position is that baptism holds no special significance in washing away sins I think it is wise to obey the Lord's command to repent and be baptized.Holding the position that baptism contains no redemptive properties in and of itself doesn't mean it should be ignored or downplayed. By the same token I partake in communion without the philosophical view that I am actually eating the physical flesh and blood of the Lord. This doesn't mean I don't think communion is important.

grams
Dec 18th 2013, 11:59 AM
Most people do not seem to believe:

That there was a time past :

But now:

And ages to come :

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth ~ ll Timothy 2:15

Curtis
Dec 18th 2013, 01:33 PM
We are baptized in water so as to clear our conscience that we were obedient to the Lord's command to do so. Being immersed completely in water I believe is symbolic to our unending desire to do all of the Lords will not matter what the cost. Constantly having out hearts renewed to and yielding every member to God for his use. Being a instrument of righteousness in the hands of a Holy God.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Vakeros
Dec 18th 2013, 04:50 PM
You have gone to a very lengthy discussion to end up at the same place that I am at. Neither one of us will now teach people to skip the baptism part, right?
Keep belief, commitment, repentance and baptism together and all will be well. When we start separating them, things go sour.
I guess we aren't at quite the same place. I put belief, commitment and repentance together.
Water Baptism is but one form of obedience / commitment. I see it as no more required than the need for circumcision - IOW NOT required at all. Hence my additional scripture from Acts 15.
However if some wish to be baptised, because that is how they are walking with God and they see it as part of keeping within tradition of the church that is fine.
Where it causes confusion is when people continue to link it to forgiveness - it is no more linked to forgiveness than animal sacrifice. This is a law based approach and removes grace. When the deeper requirements of living by faith and abiding in Him are understood then baptism has a new role to play, different to that given by Peter in Acts 2 and akin to that espoused by Peter later on in his letter and as connected by Paul in Romans to Jesus, death, burial and resurrection.

Silvermist
Dec 18th 2013, 09:02 PM
I guess we aren't at quite the same place. I put belief, commitment and repentance together.
Baptism is but one form of obedience / commitment. I see it as no more required than the need for circumcision - IOW NOT required at all. Hence my additional scripture from Acts 15.
However if some wish to be baptised, because that is how they are walking with God and they see it as part of keeping within tradition of the church that is fine.
Where it causes confusion is when people continue to link it to forgiveness - it is no more linked to forgiveness than animal sacrifice. This is a law based approach and removes grace. When the deeper requirements of living by faith and abiding in Him are understood then baptism has a new role to play, different to that given by Peter in Acts 2 and akin to that espoused by Peter later on in his letter and as connected by Paul in Romans to Jesus, death, burial and resurrection.

Thank you Vakeros. I have read Acts 15 and wondered why the modern Protestant church acts as though Baptism and Communion are laws. To me they are both rituals that express faith. It bothers me that Baptism is not done freely by the church. They don't charge a fee per say, but encourage a donation, which to me is like coercion. A dose of guilt I don't remember ever reading in the Bible that money was exchanged at the Jordan River. I spoke online with a minister once who told me that Baptism without faith was just a bath. He said that he baptized people of faith, who wanted to do it as the first act of obedience.

Vakeros
Dec 19th 2013, 11:04 PM
Thank you Vakeros. I have read Acts 15 and wondered why the modern Protestant church acts as though Baptism and Communion are laws. To me they are both rituals that express faith. It bothers me that Baptism is not done freely by the church. They don't charge a fee per say, but encourage a donation, which to me is like coercion. A dose of guilt I don't remember ever reading in the Bible that money was exchanged at the Jordan River. I spoke online with a minister once who told me that Baptism without faith was just a bath. He said that he baptized people of faith, who wanted to do it as the first act of obedience.
Our church NEVER charges a fee nor even do we ask for a donation - in fact we would reject even a free-will gift.
Communion is a request of Jesus', and one I am happy to do. There are different ways to keep it meaningful.
Water baptism as a law is as wrong as circumcision, or animal sacrifice. Water baptism as a statement of faith, as a proclamation of a good conscience however is a good thing.

The problem is people look to the way people acted in scripture and then make it into a binding instruction for all people everywhere. We see similar trouble over other contentious issues, such as women preacher's etc.

I personally wasn't baptised as a matter of choice, because I saw people teaching it as law and when I researched His Word, there is no such law or requirement. No one ever NEEDS to be baptised in water. We all NEED to be immersed in Him (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
However whilst I was in mission, I attended a baptism of local believers. God spoke to me then, NOT as a law, but as an example and encouragement. As a statement of faith in God and as a witness for them. I had to be obedient to Him on that.
The problem we all have to deal with is that obedience is harder than the law. So we need His grace more.

Sojourner
Dec 19th 2013, 11:10 PM
Thank you Vakeros. I have read Acts 15 and wondered why the modern Protestant church acts as though Baptism and Communion are laws. To me they are both rituals that express faith. It bothers me that Baptism is not done freely by the church. They don't charge a fee per say, but encourage a donation, which to me is like coercion. A dose of guilt I don't remember ever reading in the Bible that money was exchanged at the Jordan River. I spoke online with a minister once who told me that Baptism without faith was just a bath. He said that he baptized people of faith, who wanted to do it as the first act of obedience.

I have never even heard of a church associating baptism with money, and seriously doubt that many do. You need to attribute that unbiblical custom to the individual churches that practice it, rather than the generic "the church." Which assemblies did you have in mind when you stated that?

Boo
Dec 22nd 2013, 11:54 AM
Those who see baptism as a work will try to rely on Acts 15 and Romans 10 as if they negate the response of baptism.

There are many things wrong with that understanding, but I know that minds will not be changed based on anything that I write. That is an easy assumption because this belief negates what other things Paul, Luke, John, Peter, Mark, and Matthew wrote. I don't hardly have near the authority to speak that these people did.

Peace and blessings to all.

Vakeros
Dec 22nd 2013, 04:52 PM
Those who see baptism as a work will try to rely on Acts 15 and Romans 10 as if they negate the response of baptism.

There are many things wrong with that understanding, but I know that minds will not be changed based on anything that I write. That is an easy assumption because this belief negates what other things Paul, Luke, John, Peter, Mark, and Matthew wrote. I don't hardly have near the authority to speak that these people did.

Peace and blessings to all.
Peace and blessings to you too.
Water baptism is an outward act - this makes it a work. James commends us for doing good works, for our faith is dead without them.
Baptism of Jesus is an inward work that He does. It happens through our receipt of His gift. It is what causes us to be born again. Now the outward work can go hand-in-hand with the inward work, or it can follow on from the inward work (which is more normally the case) or it can bring about an inward change - such as when we choose to praise God, yet until we actually physically do so, we don't receive the blessing. Once we start the outward act, then the blessing falls. This happens in prayer and laying on of hands.
In all things it is of course God.

If there is anything, which I have posted above which you disagree with, then please state what it is. However on what do you rely on? I have responded to the verses you highlighted and hopefully explained sufficiently what conclusions I arrived at and why. There shouldn't be a conflict between any of the authors. I don't see one. You do. So I wonder where the conflict is.

WITDNM
Dec 22nd 2013, 11:04 PM
Peace and blessings to you too.
Water baptism is an outward act - this makes it a work. James commends us for doing good works, for our faith is dead without them..

When I was baptized in water, I did nothing. No work at all. Being baptized in water is an act of total submission. No work is required on the part of the one submitting.

Boo
Dec 23rd 2013, 10:29 AM
Peace and blessings to you too.
Water baptism is an outward act - this makes it a work. James commends us for doing good works, for our faith is dead without them.
Baptism of Jesus is an inward work that He does. It happens through our receipt of His gift. It is what causes us to be born again. Now the outward work can go hand-in-hand with the inward work, or it can follow on from the inward work (which is more normally the case) or it can bring about an inward change - such as when we choose to praise God, yet until we actually physically do so, we don't receive the blessing. Once we start the outward act, then the blessing falls. This happens in prayer and laying on of hands.
In all things it is of course God.

If there is anything, which I have posted above which you disagree with, then please state what it is. However on what do you rely on? I have responded to the verses you highlighted and hopefully explained sufficiently what conclusions I arrived at and why. There shouldn't be a conflict between any of the authors. I don't see one. You do. So I wonder where the conflict is.

I am a bit surprised that you do not see the differences between types of works. There are certain works that God requires of us in order to be His children, but works of merit - trying to get to the Kingdom of God via them - will result in nothing.

Consider the following example from Jesus’ statements in John 6: 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." 28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Baptism is not a work of merit. It is total submission to Christ Jesus done by someone else; not by ourselves.

My brother, I have a great deal of respect for you and I look at all your opinions as coming from an honest heart. However, once in a while, we disagree on details. I try not to get hung up on details that result in insignificant things. The nuts 'n bolts of an action matter not when the end result is what God wants.

I have tried repeatedly to see how certain baptism doctrines can be valid, even managing to accept them once when a Greek word-game was played and the text in verses was changed to fit the doctrine. God would not let me buy it. I wanted to because it would remove the conflict that was taking place between some beloved brothers and me.

What I have managed to do is to not hold that I know all of God's methods and purposes. I do not teach young Christians my view of those verses unless they ask. When I do, I also explain the "other view" as well. The idea that water baptism is out of date and not required at all is way too different for me, and since those who were sent (after Jesus ascended to be with the father) still water baptized, I don't see how I can get there.

I know that God sees us from the inside out and not from the outside in. I am sure that He is a just and perfect God. I pray that nothing I ever do or say misleads one of His lambs. I also pray that nothing I ever say causes friction between one of my kindred spirits and me.

God bless you, brother. I do learn a lot from your discussions. I profit from most things I delve into in one way or another. On this topic, however, I see no value in continuing. I have done a lot of studying on this topic and can post many, many findings, but I don't think it would profit anyone who already has his mind made up. Many others have proved that last statement true.

God bless you, Vakeros

percho
Dec 24th 2013, 02:55 AM
For those of us who have been water baptized. And for toose of us who believe we have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Do we still have a cup to drink of and a baptism to be baptized with? If the answer is yes and I believe it to be so. Is that baptism relative to final salvation?

Vakeros
Dec 24th 2013, 09:51 AM
I am a bit surprised that you do not see the differences between types of works. There are certain works that God requires of us in order to be His children, but works of merit - trying to get to the Kingdom of God via them - will result in nothing.
This is why I did want to get deeper. There are indeed different types of works, yet (and this is important we get clear) NONE of them are required in order to be His children. Some would classify accepting a gift as a work. I would say, not unless it is wrapped up.


Consider the following example from Jesus’ statements in John 6: 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." 28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
This is a statement that can easily be misunderstood because of that little word "to". It exists in the Greek and can mean "into" or "for" or as the KJV puts it as "unto". Jesus isn't saying labour for eternal life, but do instead this parallels His teaching on storing up treasures in heaven. That is doing works of eternal value and not simply for this life. These are the good works which God has prepared for us. These works also are part of the process of transforming us to the likeness of His son.


Baptism is not a work of merit. It is total submission to Christ Jesus done by someone else; not by ourselves.
Though I agree that water baptism isn't a work of merit - I do find two problems:
1) Many within all strands of the church do see it as a requirement. As we know from debates on this forum for example.
2) If we don't do it then whose bodies are they? We have to step forward, we have to enter the water. If we did nothing then it wouldn't be us showing our good conscience. I do agree that it is a picture of submission to God and also indirectly to others.


My brother, I have a great deal of respect for you and I look at all your opinions as coming from an honest heart. However, once in a while, we disagree on details. I try not to get hung up on details that result in insignificant things. The nuts 'n bolts of an action matter not when the end result is what God wants.
I have tried repeatedly to see how certain baptism doctrines can be valid, even managing to accept them once when a Greek word-game was played and the text in verses was changed to fit the doctrine. God would not let me buy it. I wanted to because it would remove the conflict that was taking place between some beloved brothers and me.
What I have managed to do is to not hold that I know all of God's methods and purposes. I do not teach young Christians my view of those verses unless they ask. When I do, I also explain the "other view" as well. The idea that water baptism is out of date and not required at all is way too different for me, and since those who were sent (after Jesus ascended to be with the father) still water baptized, I don't see how I can get there.
I appreciate your respect, I have never taught that water baptism is out of date. It is still relevant, but that is different to being a requirement. The disciples did many things as well as water baptism AFTER Jesus ascended to heaven. None of which we still do today. We CAN if God leads us that way, but that is about form and culture and NOT about the heart. For example, they went to the temple - we can't do that. They shared everything in common. We don't do that. They made vows and sacrifices (temple is gone so we can't do that) but they still did that. Timothy was circumcised (as a fully grown man), not as a requirement which Paul had argued strongly against, but in order to give testimony to the gospel to those he sort to reach. For me water baptism is exactly like being circumcised. It has its role, it portrays a picture which can be helpful, but it is no longer a requirement (if it ever was). remember not everything the disciples did, even after receiving the Holy Spirit in power was always right.


I know that God sees us from the inside out and not from the outside in. I am sure that He is a just and perfect God. I pray that nothing I ever do or say misleads one of His lambs. I also pray that nothing I ever say causes friction between one of my kindred spirits and me.
God bless you, brother. I do learn a lot from your discussions. I profit from most things I delve into in one way or another. On this topic, however, I see no value in continuing. I have done a lot of studying on this topic and can post many, many findings, but I don't think it would profit anyone who already has his mind made up. Many others have proved that last statement true. God bless you, Vakeros
If we don't seek to change peoples minds, but seek instead to present the truth as we understand it, then we are more able to let the truth defend itself and bring about change. We are called to work at the unity of the body. I think the injunction about food in 1 Cor is similar. Everything is permissible, yet not everything is beneficial. I shouldn't cause my weaker brother to stumble.
I am happy also leave this discussion here. Blessings

Boo
Dec 24th 2013, 01:02 PM
For those of us who have been water baptized. And for toose of us who believe we have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Do we still have a cup to drink of and a baptism to be baptized with? If the answer is yes and I believe it to be so. Is that baptism relative to final salvation?

My belief, my repentance, my submission, my baptism; all are done.

I continue in my belief and submission, and when I err, I again repent. There is only one baptism, and I was baptized.

My salvation now depends on my continuing in the faith and submission. God grant that I will always choose to do so.

Vakeros
Dec 24th 2013, 02:14 PM
My belief, my repentance, my submission, my baptism; all are done.

I continue in my belief and submission, and when I err, I again repent. There is only one baptism, and I was baptized.

My salvation now depends on my continuing in the faith and submission. God grant that I will always choose to do so.
Your continuing faith and submission means you continue to abide in Him, you remain immersed in His Name.
For me though we have a one off event of being given a new life, we also continue living in that life. We were baptised and we remain baptised. Perhaps that perspective may help visualise our immersion in Him which is the one which ALL who are in Him have.

Boo
Dec 25th 2013, 11:34 AM
Your continuing faith and submission means you continue to abide in Him, you remain immersed in His Name.
For me though we have a one off event of being given a new life, we also continue living in that life. We were baptised and we remain baptised. Perhaps that perspective may help visualise our immersion in Him which is the one which ALL who are in Him have.

I am absolutely immersed in Him. We agree.

percho
Dec 26th 2013, 04:24 AM
My belief, my repentance, my submission, my baptism; all are done.

I continue in my belief and submission, and when I err, I again repent. There is only one baptism, and I was baptized.

My salvation now depends on my continuing in the faith and submission. God grant that I will always choose to do so.

Jesus speaking of himself some time after he had been baptized by John.

But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Luke 12:50

Jesus speaking within the last week or so of his life as flesh and blood.
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? --- His disciples answered. They say unto him, We are able. Matt 20:22

Jesus then stated. V23
Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with:

What is this baptism we indeed will be baptized with?

I say the cup of suffering is, suffering unto death. Which is seen in these verses. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:17,18


Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Hebrews 5:8

Was the obedience he learned through the things he suffered the following obedience and what did this obedience bring to him? And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phil 2:8

Suffered unto death.

grams
Dec 26th 2013, 10:54 AM
We have it all upon belief !


We no longer need to be water Baptized....... No Water..........

Galatians 3:

23
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

grams
Dec 26th 2013, 11:01 AM
Colossians 1:


26

Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:


27

To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


28

Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:


29

Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily

Boo
Dec 26th 2013, 11:44 AM
We have it all upon belief !


We no longer need to be water Baptized....... No Water..........

Galatians 3:

23
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Show me the verse that shows us how to be baptized into Christ where there is no water.

Jesus and all the apostles were familiar with water baptism. They had done those baptisms while Jesus watched. When they spoke of baptism, there is no reason at all to think that there is a second baptism that does not include water - unless, of course, you believe Paul was wrong and there really is more than one baptism.

Romans 6: 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.

percho
Dec 26th 2013, 05:10 PM
We have it all upon belief !


We no longer need to be water Baptized....... No Water..........

Galatians 3:

23
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


Show me the verse that shows us how to be baptized into Christ where there is no water.

Jesus and all the apostles were familiar with water baptism. They had done those baptisms while Jesus watched. When they spoke of baptism, there is no reason at all to think that there is a second baptism that does not include water - unless, of course, you believe Paul was wrong and there really is more than one baptism.

Romans 6: 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 as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:14,16,15

Gal. 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Why has the Spirit of God been given unto us? Did something absolutely need to take place in order for the Spirit of God to be given to us? The Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of truth. the Comforter?

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

What had the Galatians heard of by which they had received, (been given) the Spirit; Did it concern Jesus having been, "gone away"?

Verse 2 of Gal. 3. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

As long as Jesus Christ lay dead in that tomb, could the Spirit of God have been given? Could the Spirit of God, Spirit being life itself, have come through one dead?
And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:17

The faith that came of Gal 3:23/25 by which they received the Spirit, was Jesus Christ being obedient unto death even the death of the cross and God his Father raising Jesus from the dead. Jesus then received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father and then the Spirit of God could be shed, (given) to us.

Acts 2:24,32,33 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

They received the gift of the Holy Spirit from God through hearing of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ; Gal 3:26,27 By having been given the Holy Spirit

grams
Dec 27th 2013, 11:03 AM
Hello Boo,

Sorry I am talking about our time !

Back then yes they did use water.

After the cross things changed. That is why Jesus went to the Cross for us.

There is a time past - but now - ages to come.

And to understand this , is what helps to understand the bible a lot better !

Boo
Dec 27th 2013, 12:30 PM
Hello Boo,

Sorry I am talking about our time !

Back then yes they did use water.

After the cross things changed. That is why Jesus went to the Cross for us.

There is a time past - but now - ages to come.

And to understand this , is what helps to understand the bible a lot better !

I see. So the apostles who went our baptizing after Christ returned to be with His Father were in error. They should not have been baptizing in water.

Boo
Dec 27th 2013, 12:31 PM
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:14,16,15

Gal. 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Why has the Spirit of God been given unto us? Did something absolutely need to take place in order for the Spirit of God to be given to us? The Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of truth. the Comforter?

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

What had the Galatians heard of by which they had received, (been given) the Spirit; Did it concern Jesus having been, "gone away"?

Verse 2 of Gal. 3. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

As long as Jesus Christ lay dead in that tomb, could the Spirit of God have been given? Could the Spirit of God, Spirit being life itself, have come through one dead?
And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:17

The faith that came of Gal 3:23/25 by which they received the Spirit, was Jesus Christ being obedient unto death even the death of the cross and God his Father raising Jesus from the dead. Jesus then received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father and then the Spirit of God could be shed, (given) to us.

Acts 2:24,32,33 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

They received the gift of the Holy Spirit from God through hearing of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ; Gal 3:26,27 By having been given the Holy Spirit

Where is the immersion spoken of?

percho
Dec 27th 2013, 06:43 PM
Where is the immersion spoken of?

I believe in water baptism. Jesus was water baptized which I believe to have been a symbol of his true baptism of suffering unto death and being raised from the dead and receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from God his Father, which showed this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. If you think about it Romans 1:3,4 say about the same thing. The Son of God was the son of David unto death according to the flesh and declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit.

I believe it shows one understands he is, in the body dying daily unto Christ knowing that he will be immersed in life at the appearing of Jesus. Compare Romans 6 with 2 Cor. 4 and on into 5. We shall indeed drink the cup of suffering unto death and be baptized, immersed, in life just as Jesus, as the sons of God, see Luke 20:35,36 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: (See Rom. 6:9) for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Boo
Dec 28th 2013, 01:05 PM
I believe in water baptism. Jesus was water baptized which I believe to have been a symbol of his true baptism of suffering unto death and being raised from the dead and receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from God his Father, which showed this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. If you think about it Romans 1:3,4 say about the same thing. The Son of God was the son of David unto death according to the flesh and declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit.

I believe it shows one understands he is, in the body dying daily unto Christ knowing that he will be immersed in life at the appearing of Jesus. Compare Romans 6 with 2 Cor. 4 and on into 5. We shall indeed drink the cup of suffering unto death and be baptized, immersed, in life just as Jesus, as the sons of God, see Luke 20:35,36 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: (See Rom. 6:9) for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

When we understand all that the New Testament tells us, we do not question whether or not we submit to water baptism. We also do not question whether or not we immerse ourselves into becoming like Christ Jesus. We never question whether or not we participate in ministry for which we have been equipped by God.

When we don't really understand, we debate it.

grams
Dec 29th 2013, 11:52 AM
Acts 9:
4

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

This was the start of it all !

1:Corn.

14

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius

No Water !


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
27;
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

God gave us Jesus .
Jesus went to the cross for us !

Water baptizing is works.................. we are no longer under this.

Your taking away the free gift that God gave us. [ HIS beloved Son ]

That is why you need to keep on reading the bible . What we think and what we read some times fools us !

Boo
Dec 29th 2013, 12:21 PM
Acts 9:
4

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

This was the start of it all !

1:Corn.

14

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius

No Water !


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
27;
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

God gave us Jesus .
Jesus went to the cross for us !

Water baptizing is works.................. we are no longer under this.

Your taking away the free gift that God gave us. [ HIS beloved Son ]

That is why you need to keep on reading the bible . What we think and what we read some times fools us !

I see. You believe that unless a verse contains the word water that no water was involved. I'm afraid that I cannot agree with that method of understanding. Context of the entire New Testament tells me that the only time the immersion does not involve water, it will say so.

I do not think that I am being fooled at all.

Vakeros
Dec 29th 2013, 09:54 PM
I see. You believe that unless a verse contains the word water that no water was involved. I'm afraid that I cannot agree with that method of understanding. Context of the entire New Testament tells me that the only time the immersion does not involve water, it will say so.

I do not think that I am being fooled at all.
Here we disagree - the context should show whether water is involved or not, regardless of whether the word is specifically used.
If you change the word baptise with immerse then it will be clearer what it refers to, because we make an incorrect automatic connection between baptise and water.
Matt 28 is the classic one - this isn't referring to water baptism, but being immersed in Him totally.
However the 1 Cor quote about Crispus and Gaius is definitely about water.
For by one Spirit we are baptised is NOT about water, it is about Baptism by the Spirit.
Each time the context should make clear.

Mar 10:38 Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptised with the baptism with which I am baptised?"
Mar 10:39 And they said to him, "We are able." And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptised, you will be baptised,
Here it clearly is NOT about water - Jesus had already been baptised in water and the Spirit and this speaks of a future baptism.

Mar 11:30 Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me."
This baptism is of water.

Luk 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!
Again this baptism is clearly NOT of water as Jesus had already been baptised in water by this time.

Act 13:24 Before his coming, John had proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
Again we know from other passages that this is a water baptism. Note that we don't need water in order to repent.

Act 19:2 And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
Act 19:3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
Act 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
This is an interesting passage. Here they know of John's baptism but Paul teaches that isn't enough. This is specifically relating to the thread. Now were they water baptised again? You can read this passage either way.

Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
This in context doesn't say. Yet it would seem that it isn't referring to water baptism, but rather the baptism in the name of Jesus of the Holy Spirit. yet this is open to challenge.

Boo
Dec 30th 2013, 12:42 PM
Vakeros, I suppose that we will continue to disagree.

Brother, I can hardly find justification for our desiring to separate the baptism taught in the New Testament as being without water when all of the letters from the Early Church Fathers state that baptism is immersion in water. Do you know of any baptism that the first and second century leaders of the church spoke of except the one in water? I have yet to see any. They were very specific in their beliefs.

We attempt so strongly to remove water from the baptism taught in the bible and taught by the early church fathers, and I can see no valid reason to do so. Have we decided that we know more about Jesus than the Apostles did? Are we more connected to the words of the bible than they were? I don't think so, so I will not attempt to change what they taught 2000 years ago.

In matters where there are abilities to make interpretations go one way or the other, I refer to the topic as taught back then and assume that it was correct. When the teachings of Jesus were corrupted later on, I won't use their words for a basis for interpretation.

110-165 AD Martyr
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all… And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe.” (Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 183)

About 30 years after Justin, Irenaeus wrote ...

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean—by means of the sacred water and the invocation [i.e., calling on the name of] of the Lord—from our old transgressions. We are spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ("Fragments of Irenaeus" 34, from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I

115-188 THEOPHILUS
“On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration, as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” (Theophilus, “To Autolycus,”, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 101)

120-205 AD IRENAEUS
“As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” Irenaeus, “Fragments From Lost Writings”, no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574)

140-230 AD Tertullian
“Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins” (Baptism 7:2).

I could go on, but either one will accept what they wrote, or we'll go back to Sola Scriptura and deny that they knew what baptism was all about so we can make the interpretations that we like.

Vakeros
Dec 31st 2013, 01:25 AM
Vakeros, I suppose that we will continue to disagree.
Brother, I can hardly find justification for our desiring to separate the baptism taught in the New Testament as being without water when all of the letters from the Early Church Fathers state that baptism is immersion in water. Do you know of any baptism that the first and second century leaders of the church spoke of except the one in water? I have yet to see any. They were very specific in their beliefs.
The ONLY outward baptism is in water. Therefore I wouldn't expect them to note any other. However the actual word baptism itself is what needs to be understood.


We attempt so strongly to remove water from the baptism taught in the bible and taught by the early church fathers, and I can see no valid reason to do so. Have we decided that we know more about Jesus than the Apostles did? Are we more connected to the words of the bible than they were? I don't think so, so I will not attempt to change what they taught 2000 years ago.
There is a very good reason to remove the word "water" from baptism, when the baptism referred to isn't one of water. It is ALSO important NOT to repeat the mistakes of the Pharisees. Water Baptism is just like circumcision. Does it save? No it doesn't - it never has and never will. Is it a requirement? No it isn't. The church has required it yet the church has followed all sorts of wrong traditions. Is water baptism a good thing? Yes it is as long as it is properly understood. I will refuse to baptise anyone in water until they understand what it is about.


In matters where there are abilities to make interpretations go one way or the other, I refer to the topic as taught back then and assume that it was correct. When the teachings of Jesus were corrupted later on, I won't use their words for a basis for interpretation.

110-165 AD Martyr (Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 183)
A good quote - one that I reject as he is teaching that washing in water brings about regeneration. Though he does highlight the need for the person to have been persuaded and believe.


About 30 years after Justin, Irenaeus wrote ...
("Fragments of Irenaeus" 34, from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I
Another interesting quote - so taking it literally it teaches us that we must be baptised in HOLY (sacred) Water. Again a teaching I reject. Do you baptise in HOLY water?


115-188 THEOPHILUS(Theophilus, “To Autolycus,”, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 101)
Again it is an appeal to a physical act to bring regeneration. Again I reject this teaching.


140-230 AD Tertullian (Baptism 7:2).
Another good quote - and again one in which the teaching is wrong. It is true that the physical affects the spiritual, but it does NOT free us from our sins. ONLY Jesus sacrifice does that and it is appropriated by us in faith regardless of outward action. The outward action should follow the inward change.


I could go on, but either one will accept what they wrote, or we'll go back to Sola Scriptura and deny that they knew what baptism was all about so we can make the interpretations that we like.
I do deny that they understood correctly - in fact there was a number of false ideas that surfaced with the very first church. The letters that form our NT contained many points dealing with false ideas with those who had learnt directly from the apostles.
This teaching on water baptism lead to people not wanting to be baptised until on their death beds as they misunderstood scripture to mean that they were cleansed of sins at this point in time and thus if they sinned aterwards then they had already been baptised and it would no longer be possible to be cleansed from sin.
IOW the outward act replaced the inward requirement. I do think we can learn from the ECF, but what they have to say needs to be held against scripture as much as what anyone else says. They are NOT inspired writers, but rather people who are stating their own understanding and interpretation. Tradition has its place, but there are certain principles that we need to apply first, these are the teachings of Jesus and of the apostles, which are our foundation. If we don't have these correctly placed then anything we build on top will be faulty.

Boo
Dec 31st 2013, 02:02 PM
OK, I got it. So some of us really do believe that we have a greater grasp of the translated text of the Apostles than those who followed immediately after them. We also disagree with all the Christians who, for 1600 years, knew that baptism was an intrinsic part of accepting the Lordship of Jesus.

Ignatius of Antioch was among the Apostolic Fathers, was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle. Yet, we think he was screwed up in his theology. I guess it does not matter what any of them said, because we choose to believe something else.

We also realize that the man who broke us away from the Catholic faith - Luther - also believed that baptism was for removal of sins. We don't believe him either.

Of course, we are all free to believe whatever we want - God will deal with all of us later.

Vakeros
Dec 31st 2013, 06:44 PM
OK, I got it. So some of us really do believe that we have a greater grasp of the translated text of the Apostles than those who followed immediately after them. We also disagree with all the Christians who, for 1600 years, knew that baptism was an intrinsic part of accepting the Lordship of Jesus.
Boo I don't mean to argue with you, but it is true that those who were discipled for three years by Jesus got things wrong sometimes. Peter and Paul BOTH got things wrong at some point. You and I get things wrong. However, Paul also wrote that IF ANYONE preaches a different gospel

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Gal 1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Gal 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."
Gal 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."

I hope you are getting my point - the Spirit is received by hearing with faith - this is the gospel. If we make any act as a requirement or law in order to receive the remission of sins then we nullify grace and put ourselves under a curse. As soon as we stop relying on the act and rely on faith, then the curse is lifted.
I believe in water baptism as a sign of a good conscience, but 100% NOT as regeneration or remission/forgiveness of sins.


Ignatius of Antioch was among the Apostolic Fathers, was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle. Yet, we think he was screwed up in his theology. I guess it does not matter what any of them said, because we choose to believe something else.
Didn't read a quote by him, so can't comment on what he said. However he, like us can have many things right and still get something wrong.


We also realize that the man who broke us away from the Catholic faith - Luther - also believed that baptism was for removal of sins. We don't believe him either.
Of course, we are all free to believe whatever we want - God will deal with all of us later.
I don't actually follow much of Luther at all even though he was a hero for my mum. God will deal with us later, but do you follow all the ECF taught?
As I asked, do you baptise in HOLY water?
ECF are useful and heroes of the faith, but they are as fallible as us. They like the early church got things wrong. We do today too. The point I am making is the basis of our faith is solely by faith. When water baptism intrudes into that then it is a teaching gone wrong.

percho
Jan 1st 2014, 05:28 AM
Boo I don't mean to argue with you, but it is true that those who were discipled for three years by Jesus got things wrong sometimes. Peter and Paul BOTH got things wrong at some point. You and I get things wrong. However, Paul also wrote that IF ANYONE preaches a different gospel

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Gal 1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Gal 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."
Gal 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."

I hope you are getting my point - the Spirit is received by hearing with faith - this is the gospel. If we make any act as a requirement or law in order to receive the remission of sins then we nullify grace and put ourselves under a curse. As soon as we stop relying on the act and rely on faith, then the curse is lifted.
I believe in water baptism as a sign of a good conscience, but 100% NOT as regeneration or remission/forgiveness of sins.


Didn't read a quote by him, so can't comment on what he said. However he, like us can have many things right and still get something wrong.


I don't actually follow much of Luther at all even though he was a hero for my mum. God will deal with us later, but do you follow all the ECF taught?
As I asked, do you baptise in HOLY water?
ECF are useful and heroes of the faith, but they are as fallible as us. They like the early church got things wrong. We do today too. The point I am making is the basis of our faith is solely by faith. When water baptism intrudes into that then it is a teaching gone wrong.

I believe the Spirit is received because of Matt 20:22 Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

As Jesus himself said. John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Drink the cup. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And, to be baptized. 1 Cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

What if he had not been raised from the dead to die no more? Would there be any, faith?

1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins. ---- There would be no faith heard of by which the Spirit was shed forth.

Because Jesus was obedient unto death, he died for our sins and because God raised Jesus from the dead, God the Father then gave the promise of the Holy Spirit to Jesus, to then be shed on us Acts 2 32,33 as the earnest of our inheritance.

We are water baptized in the name of Jesus showing that we consider ourselves dead in Jesus and that we have the hope of eternal life by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Romans 6 and Titus 3:6,7.

Boo
Jan 1st 2014, 10:06 AM
Boo I don't mean to argue with you, but it is true that those who were discipled for three years by Jesus got things wrong sometimes. Peter and Paul BOTH got things wrong at some point. You and I get things wrong. However, Paul also wrote that IF ANYONE preaches a different gospel

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Gal 1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Gal 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."
Gal 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."

I hope you are getting my point - the Spirit is received by hearing with faith - this is the gospel. If we make any act as a requirement or law in order to receive the remission of sins then we nullify grace and put ourselves under a curse. As soon as we stop relying on the act and rely on faith, then the curse is lifted.
I believe in water baptism as a sign of a good conscience, but 100% NOT as regeneration or remission/forgiveness of sins.


Didn't read a quote by him, so can't comment on what he said. However he, like us can have many things right and still get something wrong.


I don't actually follow much of Luther at all even though he was a hero for my mum. God will deal with us later, but do you follow all the ECF taught?
As I asked, do you baptise in HOLY water?
ECF are useful and heroes of the faith, but they are as fallible as us. They like the early church got things wrong. We do today too. The point I am making is the basis of our faith is solely by faith. When water baptism intrudes into that then it is a teaching gone wrong.

Ignatius believed in the effectiveness of baptism.

110 AD Ignatius of Antioch “Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply” (Letter to Polycarp 6).

"Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection." (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, II)

Probably the reason that we don't see the word baptism as much is because it was inherent in receiving Christ as Lord. It was not separated back then as a different act. That is a fairly modern concept but it was not back in the first and second centuries - actually, it was not considered a separate event until the 17th century. Belief, repentance, faith, and baptism were all one event. That is why there are so many verses that speak of the reason for baptism - but modern day preachers like to call it a "work" and deny its purpose. That, in effect, makes liars out of Jesus, Peter, Ananias, and Paul.

Luther still placed an alternate view of the verse that speaks of one believer baptizing his whole family upon belief, so he still advocated baptizing infants. However, even after breaking away from the Catholic church, he sill believed in effective baptism. How did he get it so wrong? Perhaps because he advocated Sola Scriptura initially and saw the requirement did exist in scriptures? We now use his teaching of Sola Scriptura to say that Luther was wrong. I call that a weird contradiction.

No, there are a few possible reasons that one might use the term "holy water." We are just so scared by the phrase that we immediately think of the mistakes of the Catholics.

If you are willing to admit that these first and second century church leaders knew the teachings of the Apostles, spoke the language, read the manuscripts, and believe they knew the purpose of baptism; then we might just understand that modern Protestant theologians might be wrong. From what my Bible tells me, they are not correct to call baptism merely an ineffective symbol. I will never tell someone that it is. I will also never tell someone that a loved one who died prior to baptism could not be saved.

If I err, I will err on the side of those who lived back then, spoke the language and were taught by the Apostles in the early church = especially since there are numerous bible verses that say the same thing.

Boo
Jan 1st 2014, 10:09 AM
We are water baptized in the name of Jesus showing that we consider ourselves dead in Jesus and that we have the hope of eternal life by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Romans 6 and Titus 3:6,7.

Why do we have to show it? Can we not just say it and live like it? Why are we dunked if all it takes is public profession?

shepherdsword
Jan 1st 2014, 10:15 AM
Since baptism is a command from the Lord I see no reason to eliminate it or analyze what it accomplishes. Just obey and let God work out the details. I view communion the same way. I don't see a need to eliminate it because some claim that it is a requirement for salvation or that they can actually turn the bread and the wine to real flesh and blood. I will say this...if we are baptized and still walk according to the flesh then we have missed the point entirely.

Boo
Jan 1st 2014, 10:22 AM
Since baptism is a command from the Lord I see no reason to eliminate it or analyze what it accomplishes. Just obey and let God work out the details. I view communion the same way. I don't see a need to eliminate it because some claim that it is a requirement for salvation or that they can actually turn the bread and the wine to real flesh and blood. I will say this...if we are baptized and still walk according to the flesh then we have missed the point entirely.

Baptism alone has no effect. It is not magic; it is God's command.

grams
Jan 1st 2014, 07:13 PM
Quote Originally Posted by grams View Post

We have it all upon belief !


We no longer need to be water Baptized....... No Water..........

Galatians 3:

23
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

*******************
Show me the verse that shows us how to be baptized into Christ where there is no water.



Take a better look............... none of the verses say water


Ehp. 2:
7

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

grams
Jan 1st 2014, 07:30 PM
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth


'Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the world of truth."(2 Tim. 2.15)

· Have you ever wondered why today's Christians can eat pork even though in the Old Testament men were forbidden to do so?

· Or, do you know people (or, perhaps yourself) who shun Christianity because Christians can't seem to agree on anything?

· And what about all those contractions in the Bible?



These are all valid concerns, but when a person begins to "rightly divide" the word of truth, as admonished by Paul to Timothy, these seeming difficulties and disputations are resolved. To "rightly divide" means that God has dealt with mankind at different times with different expectations from him. Although it is profitable for us to read the entire Bible (2Tim.3:16), it is imperative that we understand which part of the Bible is intended primarily for us in this time of Grace. The following excerpt from the book "Things That Differ" by C.R. Stam explains:

"If I should step inside a modern United States Post Office all would doubtless seem very confusing to me. But it would be a mistake to suggest piling all the mail neatly into one corner and handing it out promiscuously to all comers as some would do with the Bible. The postal employees must rightly divide the mail so that each person receives what is addressed to him. What seems like confusion to the novice is really a simplification of the work to be done in getting each person's private mail
to him.


It is granted that in the Bible even that which was addressed to those of other dispensations is given to us for our learning and profit, but we must not confuse this with our own private mail or make the mistake of carrying out instructions meant particularly for others.

While I am reading mail addressed personally to me, a friend may hand me, for my interest or information, mail addressed to him. His mail and mine may all prove informative and profitable, but I must still be careful not to confuse the two, expecting to receive things promised to him or carrying out instructions addressed to him.

Thus, all the Bible is for us, but it is not all addressed to us or written about us, and if we would really understand and enjoy it; if we would really know how to use it effectively in service for Christ, we must be careful always to note who is addressing whom, about what and when and why" (p.20).


In every dispensation, righteousness before God has always been achieved by believing what God has said and acting upon it. For example, the law required every male child to be circumcised, but that is not God's requirement today.

The LAW says: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen. 17:14.


But GRACE says: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands...Col. 2:10,11.





There were also many dietary laws, and one in particular many people remember is the prohibition not to eat pork. But under the dispensation of Grace, we are not under those prohibitions.


The LAW says: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass. Deut. 14:8


But GRACE says: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 1Tim: 4:4



And the Sabbath day. In our day of grace, one day is like unto another. All are to be lived to the glory of God.


The Law says: Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God...Ex. 20:8,10.


But GRACE says: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days... Col.2:16,17


And because of the finished work of Jesus Christ at the Cross, we are no longer under any provision of the law for the forgiveness of sin.


The Law says: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. (Matt. 6:12) For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matt. 6:14,15.


But GRACE says: And ye be kind one to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. Eph. 4.32.



The ultimate example of the difference between law and grace is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. The law required annual blood sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, which we now understand were but a foreshadow of the ultimate sacrifice Christ Jesus would make for the complete payment for all of our sins.


The Law says: The blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifiethto the purifying of the flesh. Heb. 9:13


But GRACE says: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Heb. 9:12



For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4)


For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:8,9)



Where the dispensation of the law was entrusted to Moses (John 1:17), the dispensation of the grace of God was entrusted to Paul. Why is understanding this so important? Because it is by this message of grace, dispensed by Paul, that God will judge us. Remember, righteousness comes by believing what God says (i.e., what God is saying to us in this age of Grace) and acting on it. That is what faith is: believing God; trusting Him and His Word. Paul says in Romans 2:16:

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to MY Gospel.



Paul tells us that he was appointed by God to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles,..." (Ro. 11:13) and that his message was revealed to him directly by Jesus Christ:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached to of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal.1:11,12)



How then does Paul's gospel differ? Pastor Thomas Brusha, in his booklet "Dictionary of the Gospel" gives a clear explanation:


God promised in the Old Testament to set up a Kingdom here on earth through the nation Israel, in which Christ would reign as King! Christ was here; and the good news proclaimed was that the Kingdom was at hand. In Matthew 10:7 we find this to be the same gospel the Twelve Apostles were sent to preach. Also, in Matthew 10:5,6 we learn that this gospel was good news for the Nation of Israel. It is amazing, yet true, that after the Twelve Apostles had been preaching this gospel now, for some time, they still did not know about Christ's purpose to go to the Cross and die for their sins. We know this is true because when Christ began later to tell his Apostles that he was going to Jerusalem to die, they didn't believe him, nor did they understand what he was talking about. The reason being, they were preaching the good news about the Kingdom. They expected Christ to establish Israel's Kingdom and to take the throne as their King - see Matthew 16:21,22; Luke 18:31-34: and Luke 19:11.



How then, could the twelve Apostles have preached the same gospel the Apostle Paul later preached, when they did not know or understand anything about the Cross at that time? Paul preached :


"THE CROSS" and "CHRIST CRUCIFIED (1 Corinthians 1:18,23)


The point is this. The gospel that the Twelve Apostles preached during the earthly ministry of Christ is not the same gospel the Apostle Paul was sent to preach later. According to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 the gospel Paul preached was the GOOD NEWS of the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of Christ FOR OUR SINS.


Paul tells us in Galatians 1:11,12 where his gospel originated. It was after the resurrection and ascension that the Lord Jesus Christ revealed to the Apostle Paul all that was accomplished on the Cross. In acts 20:24 Paul calls this message "THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD." In Galatians 2:1,2 we see that this gospel is intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews; and in Galatians 2:6-10 we find that the Twelve Apostles learned of this gospel from Paul.


In this present age of "GRACE", God has set Israel as a nation aside, and the Kingdom promised to them has been postponed until a future time. Therefore the "GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM" is NOT God's message of good news for today, but rather the good news of how the Cross saves Sinners of all nationalities. This is God's message for today! (pp6-8).



The following books are recommended:


"Dictionary of the Gospel" by Thomas Bruscha
"Things That Differ" by C. R. Stam
"The Dispensations" by Hazel I. Brown


This is from our church.

watchinginawe
Jan 1st 2014, 08:00 PM
Probably the reason that we don't see the word baptism as much is because it was inherent in receiving Christ as Lord. It was not separated back then as a different act. That is a fairly modern concept but it was not back in the first and second centuries - actually, it was not considered a separate event until the 17th century. Belief, repentance, faith, and baptism were all one event.

Boo, that simply is not true, at least as to any of my studies on the subject. Basic research on the order of service of the early church would show that catechumens were excluded (dismissed) before Communion. By your suggestion, there would be no such thing as a catechumen. Do you really believe that Baptism wasn't considered a separate event until the 17th Century? Honestly, I would like to know the texts you are studying which teach this.


Luther still placed an alternate view of the verse that speaks of one believer baptizing his whole family upon belief, so he still advocated baptizing infants. However, even after breaking away from the Catholic church, he sill believed in effective baptism. How did he get it so wrong? Perhaps because he advocated Sola Scriptura initially and saw the requirement did exist in scriptures? We now use his teaching of Sola Scriptura to say that Luther was wrong. I call that a weird contradiction. Again, show me the texts that suggest this. Luther and the reformers at large are known for the accommodation of a "single source of tradition" in consideration of interpretations of Scripture and some practices of the church. Infant baptism did not find support via Sola Scriptura, but rather by the unbroken practice of infant baptism beginning with the early church, thus the "single source of tradition" (the practices and interpretations of Scripture recognized by the ECF). Thus (so supposed and supported), because the ECF recognized infant baptism as supported by Scripture and as tradition handed down directly from the Apostles, Luther also supported the practice. Since you consistently limit your history to 200 years, you probably believe that excludes infant baptism, but an honest study does not show the practice to be a sudden swerve into error, and certainly not a 17th century innovation!

You make it sound like you don't support infant baptism. That certainly would be a rejection of a common practice of the church, consistent for 2,000 years. By your standard, a rejection of infant baptism would nullify this "early church" defense you have presented for the efficacy of water baptism in the remission of sins. Luther believed (consistent with the "single source of tradition" and with unbroken practice in the church) that baptizing infants washed away the carnal original sin that all are born with. Since the actual efficacy of water baptism was believed to wash original sin away, the church consistently throughout the tradition from the beginning to even now believed the sooner the better in applying the remedy. If an infant died without having had their sins remitted, then they died in their sin. Personally, I have difficulty accepting these extra-biblical teachings and I believe it shows error creeping into tradition from the very beginning of the church.


If I err, I will err on the side of those who lived back then, spoke the language and were taught by the Apostles in the early church = especially since there are numerous bible verses that say the same thing. Is that just for baptism, or all teachings? If all, I suppose you also believe that the bread of Communion actually becomes the flesh of Jesus Christ then? And that it delivers life (is efficacious for eternal life) in the partaking by the Christian? And that separation from the "one communion" of the church separates one from the "body" of Christ?

I have honestly considered how to best integrate tradition into my beliefs. One of the most important beliefs of the early church concerned schisms, and who wants to be a schismatic? To me, and I have considered this, if I wanted to find a church that most closely matches the beliefs and practices of the early church, I would highly consider the Roman Catholic church or perhaps more probably Eastern Orthodox. I find, the same as you do I think, no way to draw a line from Scripture to these most logical choices with all due consideration to succession of tradition. I find myself to be mostly on my own then, and probably a schismatic by the early church standards (as I think most would find themselves to be). I don't reject any of these teachings and tradition immediately as useless, but I think we must qualify them by Scripture. Neither men nor ritual can prevent or confer what God does directly within us.

Vakeros
Jan 1st 2014, 10:15 PM
Baptism alone has no effect. It is not magic; it is God's command.
Where is it God's command? I can see the command of men, and the traditions of the church, yet right in Acts we have people giving the baptism of John, this at the start of the church - yet were is the command? It isn't there. This is what I am highlighting. I see the traditions of men, I see Peter giving a command to be baptised in water for repentance - yet and this is important - water baptism, like circumcision avails nothing. If it is a requirement of God in order for one to be forgiven of ones sins then this changes the Gospel we have been given.
IOW you have two choices -
a) It MUST be done
b) It can be done

You have argued for a) as it is what WAS done by the ECF and we have examples in scripture especially by Peter (whose main ministry was to the Jews.) Or we have the example of Paul who stopped baptising people in water and didn't command anyone to baptise with water and spoke mainly about baptism in the Spirit.
I argue for b) that it has NEVER been a scriptural requirement. Jesus didn't baptise the 12 disciples. There is plenty of scriptural evidence that we come to Christ regardless of any outward act.
This is what is important to get right. I do baptise people because it can be a powerful testimony, greater than simply mouthing words. But at heart it is about a good conscience pleged to God.
A bit like marriage where the rings on the finger are but an outward testimony to the agreement between two people.

Boo
Jan 2nd 2014, 11:12 AM
Where is it God's command? I can see the command of men, and the traditions of the church, yet right in Acts we have people giving the baptism of John, this at the start of the church - yet were is the command? It isn't there. This is what I am highlighting. I see the traditions of men, I see Peter giving a command to be baptised in water for repentance - yet and this is important - water baptism, like circumcision avails nothing. If it is a requirement of God in order for one to be forgiven of ones sins then this changes the Gospel we have been given.
IOW you have two choices -
a) It MUST be done
b) It can be done

You have argued for a) as it is what WAS done by the ECF and we have examples in scripture especially by Peter (whose main ministry was to the Jews.) Or we have the example of Paul who stopped baptising people in water and didn't command anyone to baptise with water and spoke mainly about baptism in the Spirit.
I argue for b) that it has NEVER been a scriptural requirement. Jesus didn't baptise the 12 disciples. There is plenty of scriptural evidence that we come to Christ regardless of any outward act.
This is what is important to get right. I do baptise people because it can be a powerful testimony, greater than simply mouthing words. But at heart it is about a good conscience pleged to God.
A bit like marriage where the rings on the finger are but an outward testimony to the agreement between two people.

My brother, you and I have already had this discussion.

Jesus had his disciples baptizing in the river - while Jesus did not, His disciples did. Nowhere in scripture is it stated that the disciples were not baptized. To believe that the absence of the statement that they were indicates that they were not is faulty and can be stretched into a proof for any position we want on many topics.

Your understanding of 1 Peter 3 is not what I see. Again, we are not going to agree. I pray that is OK with you, my brother.

Jesus commanded us to make disciples and baptize them and teach them all that He commanded. You prefer to believe that Jesus commanded us to make disciples and then do something that only the Holy Spirit can do.

As I said before, you and I will not come to an agreement here. I see that Jesus commands me to baptize all those who choose to become His disciple. You do not see it, and that is your choice. Teach what you will, for it is up to God who is correct.

This has been a bit confusing for me as I am in two threads on this subject at the same time, so I get a bit lost. I hope I am clear enough.

I do not believe that dunking anyone in water saves anyone. I do not believe that God refuses to accept a person who cannot be baptized. I believe it is up to God whether or not to accept someone who refuses to be baptized. I don't make those choices.

It is also up to God to decide what to do with those who preach and teach and err in their teaching. Like you, I see what I see, and I teach accordingly.

God bless you in your ministry, brother.

grams
Jan 2nd 2014, 05:01 PM
We are no longer under the law !

We are now Gentiles.

And this time is different then before ....... Time past - But now - Ages to come -

Vakeros
Jan 3rd 2014, 12:19 AM
My brother, you and I have already had this discussion.

Jesus had his disciples baptizing in the river - while Jesus did not, His disciples did. Nowhere in scripture is it stated that the disciples were not baptized. To believe that the absence of the statement that they were indicates that they were not is faulty and can be stretched into a proof for any position we want on many topics.
I agree that can be done, but IF water baptism is such a clear and REQUIRED thing you would expect there to be some mention of it in some way. But instead we get clear teaching that Jesus doesn't baptise with water. IOW though t is correct we can't argue from the absence solely of something, the fact we are told that jesus' baptism is different means we should take notice of that fact. Again John speaks of water baptism and then highlights that Jesus didn't do it. So it is a bit stronger than absence. In fact it is as clear as can be without a specific word saying that Jesus never baptised anyone.


Your understanding of 1 Peter 3 is not what I see. Again, we are not going to agree. I pray that is OK with you, my brother.
I thought we agreed that it is primarily about a good conscience towards God. A statement of faith in Him in any outward act.
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But if we disagree, then that is the way of it.


Jesus commanded us to make disciples and baptize them and teach them all that He commanded. You prefer to believe that Jesus commanded us to make disciples and then do something that only the Holy Spirit can do.
Nope, that isn't anything I have said - I have said that the focus is on making disciples. How do we do that? Is it a) through water baptism or b) through leading them deeper into the knowledge of Jesus the Father and the Spirit?
For me it is clearly b) which is then exemplified through teaching them to observe the whole which Jesus taught the disciples. IOW passing our knowledge of Him on to others.


As I said before, you and I will not come to an agreement here. I see that Jesus commands me to baptize all those who choose to become His disciple. You do not see it, and that is your choice. Teach what you will, for it is up to God who is correct.
This has been a bit confusing for me as I am in two threads on this subject at the same time, so I get a bit lost. I hope I am clear enough.
You are coming across clearly to me. Where we differ is the REQUIREMENT aspect of water baptism. We both agree it is a good thing to do, but I see no command and you do. The concern I have would be then that you teach others that it is a command as well. We are COMMANDED to obey Him. We are His Slaves. However fro my study and walk, the key is exactly that, we are commanded to love Him which we do by abiding in Him. This is the sole sum total of His commands - it is the working out of what His commands are that is the abiding.
As I stated I wasn't going to be baptised in water. I rejected it as a work and NOT grace. However Timothy was circumciseds, NOT for righteousness, but for testimony and obedience and God told me I should be baptised, so I was.


I do not believe that dunking anyone in water saves anyone. I do not believe that God refuses to accept a person who cannot be baptized. I believe it is up to God whether or not to accept someone who refuses to be baptized. I don't make those choices.
It is also up to God to decide what to do with those who preach and teach and err in their teaching. Like you, I see what I see, and I teach accordingly.
God bless you in your ministry, brother.
Blessings to you in yours.
I believe that the Bible makes it clear what God has ALREADY decided - He accepts ALL those who repent and confess that Jesus is Lord and then remain in Him. You seemingly add the word baptise in there, but I strongly believe in freedom to be a slave to God - and He may require those like me who don't see water baptism as a requirement for salvation to still be called to be obedient to Him in this way.

percho
Jan 3rd 2014, 02:25 AM
I believe our being water baptized shows we consider ourselves to be his sheep and to be dead in him expecting to be made alive with him per Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life;

Robert Allen
Jan 3rd 2014, 03:37 AM
It is the act of baptism that's important NOT what is said. What we are being told is we are to do it by the authority of God in all His forms. The same goes for praying in Jesus name. We are to approach the Father in Jesus authority NOT tack Jesus' name on the end of a prayer.

Boo
Jan 3rd 2014, 11:10 AM
I agree that can be done, but IF water baptism is such a clear and REQUIRED thing you would expect there to be some mention of it in some way. But instead we get clear teaching that Jesus doesn't baptise with water. IOW though t is correct we can't argue from the absence solely of something, the fact we are told that jesus' baptism is different means we should take notice of that fact. Again John speaks of water baptism and then highlights that Jesus didn't do it. So it is a bit stronger than absence. In fact it is as clear as can be without a specific word saying that Jesus never baptised anyone.


I thought we agreed that it is primarily about a good conscience towards God. A statement of faith in Him in any outward act.
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But if we disagree, then that is the way of it.


Nope, that isn't anything I have said - I have said that the focus is on making disciples. How do we do that? Is it a) through water baptism or b) through leading them deeper into the knowledge of Jesus the Father and the Spirit?
For me it is clearly b) which is then exemplified through teaching them to observe the whole which Jesus taught the disciples. IOW passing our knowledge of Him on to others.


You are coming across clearly to me. Where we differ is the REQUIREMENT aspect of water baptism. We both agree it is a good thing to do, but I see no command and you do. The concern I have would be then that you teach others that it is a command as well. We are COMMANDED to obey Him. We are His Slaves. However fro my study and walk, the key is exactly that, we are commanded to love Him which we do by abiding in Him. This is the sole sum total of His commands - it is the working out of what His commands are that is the abiding.
As I stated I wasn't going to be baptised in water. I rejected it as a work and NOT grace. However Timothy was circumciseds, NOT for righteousness, but for testimony and obedience and God told me I should be baptised, so I was.


Blessings to you in yours.
I believe that the Bible makes it clear what God has ALREADY decided - He accepts ALL those who repent and confess that Jesus is Lord and then remain in Him. You seemingly add the word baptise in there, but I strongly believe in freedom to be a slave to God - and He may require those like me who don't see water baptism as a requirement for salvation to still be called to be obedient to Him in this way.

I am obedient. Jesus' Disciples baptized in water. The Apostles baptized in water. The Deacon Philip baptized in water. I baptize in water.

Thousands were baptized AFTER Jesus ascended to be with the Father. It is a New Covenant thing.

God bless, brother. I don't know how to be more clear.

Vakeros
Jan 3rd 2014, 11:53 AM
I am obedient. Jesus' Disciples baptized in water. The Apostles baptized in water. The Deacon Philip baptized in water. I baptize in water.
Thousands were baptized AFTER Jesus ascended to be with the Father. It is a New Covenant thing.
God bless, brother. I don't know how to be more clear.
You are clear - yet using that line of reasoning, (which does have merit), then we can also say that Jesus was circumcised, the Apostles were circumcised and Paul instructed Timothy to be circumcised. It was a requirement to receive the promise as given to Abraham. God killed people who weren't circumcised. So obviously all new believers should be circumcised. This was a serious question which was resolved in Acts 15. Again the fact that there is a clear statement of what should be done that does NOT include water baptism is telling.
What I think we have to be clear about is what the purpose of water baptism is and why it was done.
In South Korea in many churches they have a time when everybody prays out loud all at the same time. It can be a complete nonsense or something refreshing. It seems contrary to Paul's teaching about order, yet sometimes the Spirit is palpable in that time of prayer. Why do I bring this up?
For two reasons:
1) When China and then Korea had revival 100 years ago, one of the things that happened was that people were caught up by God's Spirit and couldn't help praying ALL at the same time - John Wesley witnessed the same thing with revival when he preached. He tried to stop it until he realised it was God at work, convicting people of sin and anointing them, in fact they were scenes reminiscent of Acts 2. However when the revival spirit stopped, people continued the form, even though the power was NOT there in the same way. This is a classic problem believers face of starting new traditions based on the outward act.
2) Sometimes God does things which on the face of it a contrary to His revealed will. It takes discernment to understanding His Spirit and its moving - are these people drunk? So even though the move of the Spirit in revival has gone, God still honours those who honour him.

Water baptism had a purpose and it was bound up within the Mosaic Law - it was of particular relevance to Jews. It also makes sense to Muslims because of the same root idea that you need to be clean in order to meet with God. There were massive jars of water available for washing in the Temple. This was ceremonial washing and this is why water baptism is sometimes seen as washing in the NT. However I want you to notice the first miracle as according to John.
Jesus turned water (from massive jars) into wine. He is the one from whom we drink and will never thirst. He is the one whose death we celebrate when we eat the bread and drink the wine. Jesus gives the meaning to washing in water.
Again note what Jesus did in John 13 - a clear indication about status and water - He was there servant making them clean. Note though that He didn't wash them all over as Peter suggested "for they were already clean", but they ONLY needed their feet washing.
Water baptism was for repentance and forgiveness. Yet we don't need this any longer, we have Jesus to go to.
Therefore ALL water baptism prior to His death, resurrection and ascension is under the Mosaic Law. Yet we see people continue to do what they know. There were those who were water baptised, yet were NOT in the right place with God, this because they received this baptism of repentance and forgiveness, and NOT baptism of Jesus.

So in conclusion, we do see the apostles baptising, however we mustn't confuse doing this with the actual requirement of being immersed in Him, through repentance and accepting His forgiveness. One model for the Jew, which may also be right for others, but is NOT a REQUIREMENT of God. It is NOT a New Covenant thing, but an Old Covenant thing given fresh and more complete meaning through the New.

Boo
Jan 4th 2014, 01:45 PM
You are clear - yet using that line of reasoning, (which does have merit), then we can also say that Jesus was circumcised, the Apostles were circumcised and Paul instructed Timothy to be circumcised. It was a requirement to receive the promise as given to Abraham. God killed people who weren't circumcised. So obviously all new believers should be circumcised. This was a serious question which was resolved in Acts 15. Again the fact that there is a clear statement of what should be done that does NOT include water baptism is telling.
What I think we have to be clear about is what the purpose of water baptism is and why it was done.
In South Korea in many churches they have a time when everybody prays out loud all at the same time. It can be a complete nonsense or something refreshing. It seems contrary to Paul's teaching about order, yet sometimes the Spirit is palpable in that time of prayer. Why do I bring this up?
For two reasons:
1) When China and then Korea had revival 100 years ago, one of the things that happened was that people were caught up by God's Spirit and couldn't help praying ALL at the same time - John Wesley witnessed the same thing with revival when he preached. He tried to stop it until he realised it was God at work, convicting people of sin and anointing them, in fact they were scenes reminiscent of Acts 2. However when the revival spirit stopped, people continued the form, even though the power was NOT there in the same way. This is a classic problem believers face of starting new traditions based on the outward act.
2) Sometimes God does things which on the face of it a contrary to His revealed will. It takes discernment to understanding His Spirit and its moving - are these people drunk? So even though the move of the Spirit in revival has gone, God still honours those who honour him.

Water baptism had a purpose and it was bound up within the Mosaic Law - it was of particular relevance to Jews. It also makes sense to Muslims because of the same root idea that you need to be clean in order to meet with God. There were massive jars of water available for washing in the Temple. This was ceremonial washing and this is why water baptism is sometimes seen as washing in the NT. However I want you to notice the first miracle as according to John.
Jesus turned water (from massive jars) into wine. He is the one from whom we drink and will never thirst. He is the one whose death we celebrate when we eat the bread and drink the wine. Jesus gives the meaning to washing in water.
Again note what Jesus did in John 13 - a clear indication about status and water - He was there servant making them clean. Note though that He didn't wash them all over as Peter suggested "for they were already clean", but they ONLY needed their feet washing.
Water baptism was for repentance and forgiveness. Yet we don't need this any longer, we have Jesus to go to.
Therefore ALL water baptism prior to His death, resurrection and ascension is under the Mosaic Law. Yet we see people continue to do what they know. There were those who were water baptised, yet were NOT in the right place with God, this because they received this baptism of repentance and forgiveness, and NOT baptism of Jesus.

So in conclusion, we do see the apostles baptising, however we mustn't confuse doing this with the actual requirement of being immersed in Him, through repentance and accepting His forgiveness. One model for the Jew, which may also be right for others, but is NOT a REQUIREMENT of God. It is NOT a New Covenant thing, but an Old Covenant thing given fresh and more complete meaning through the New.

We are back at the point where you and I separate. There is nothing that says that Jesus' command to baptize - an action that man does to one who submits to the Lordship of Jesus while God does whatever it is that He does during baptism - is a New Covenant thing. That is confirmed by several witnesses. There is no New Covenant command to circumcise, even though Paul did it to Timothy because his father was a Greek.

Because of many witnesses, we know that we are to baptize in water. You don't accept that, that is your right.

Immersing ourselves into Christ is essential, but I see nothing in scripture that stops the submission to baptism.

Can we leave it at that? I still call you brother - God Bless. :)

Vakeros
Jan 4th 2014, 05:45 PM
We are back at the point where you and I separate. There is nothing that says that Jesus' command to baptize - an action that man does to one who submits to the Lordship of Jesus while God does whatever it is that He does during baptism - is a New Covenant thing. That is confirmed by several witnesses. There is no New Covenant command to circumcise, even though Paul did it to Timothy because his father was a Greek.

Because of many witnesses, we know that we are to baptize in water. You don't accept that, that is your right.

Immersing ourselves into Christ is essential, but I see nothing in scripture that stops the submission to baptism.

Can we leave it at that? I still call you brother - God Bless. :)
I am happy to leave it with the points we have both raised. We do both agree that nothing in scripture stops submission to baptism, nor to being circumcised, or even in another case for me, to take my shoes and socks off in church because God spoke to me about being on Holy Ground. I normally keep my shoes and socks on, but one time whilst I was leading the service God said this to me and after hesitating I did - the touch from God during that service was fantastic. But it also was a one off command.

Gadgeteer
Jul 10th 2014, 03:49 PM
Fair enough, but when I read about these special gifts of the Holy Spirit in Acts as given to the Apostles (Acts 2), The Samaritans (Acts 8), and the Gentiles (Acts 10) they are explained as making lame people walk, speaking in other languages, miracles etc. When people these days explain the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" it seems to me it has more to do with an emotional high than anything that is actually taking place in the verses in Acts. When have you seen the blind see, the dead raised, the lame walk, and the speaking in foreign languages people didn't previously understand?

IMO (obviously) Paul wrote after these events and said there was only "one baptism". Jesus instituted a baptism that would last till the end of time. Paul himself saw a light from heaven (Acts 22:6), called Jesus Lord (Acts 22:10), followed his instructions (Acts 22:11), fasted for 3 days (Acts 9:9) and was praying (Acts 9:11) yet his sins were not forgiven until he was baptized (Acts 22:16). It would be hard for me to imagine with all this the one baptism Paul was discussing in Ephesians was a different baptism.



I believe that (Acts 2:38 - John 3:5 - Titus 3:5) all show it as one event. It is also a fact that the universal church always believed this to be true as stated in the Nicene Creed:

"I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins"

Also, there are endless quotes from the church fathers. There was bigger disagreements by the early church what books were actually Scripture and which were not than any disagreement on what baptism is or what it does.

It is not the water that saves, but the "calling on His name".

The "ONE BAPTISM" (Eph4:5), is the same one Jesus talked about in Luke12:50, and in Mark10:38; neither of those verses associate "water" with Jesus' baptism-Crucifixion, at all.

Gadgeteer
Jul 10th 2014, 03:52 PM
Hi watchinginawe,

I think we should really look at these verses because they admittedly cause trouble for us all without proper interpretation with other Scripture to harmonize all the verses.OH I wish people would harmonize all the verses!

:-)


If the people had not received the Holy Spirit yet, as we do, not special Holy Spirit gifts that accompanied the Apostles and Cornelius such as speaking foreign languages and making the lame walk, then these verses also fully refute Protestantism in general:

Acts 8:12 - 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.

See here according to most Protestants these people believed in Christ and would have been saved and received the Holy Spirit (See Mailmandan post). According to 2000 years of Church history, the Nicene Creed and other specific verses such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, would also not be true because they believed and were baptized and these verses say they would have been saved, sins forgiven and received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:13 - Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

I believe this verse puts it in proper perspective and harmonizes all the rest of the New Testament that speak on faith and baptism. It must be speaking of Holy Spirit gifts such as these signs and great miracles that are no longer witnessed in the modern day.

Acts 8:17 - Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Now this makes it more difficult if we are saying they didn’t receive the spirit like us, which creates faith and kills off the old Adam rather than specific gifts applicable at the time as explained in verse 13. If that is the case then only the churches that lead back to the Apostles could have the Holy Spirit as it must be transferred by the laying of hands, something only Anglicans and some Lutherans can claim in modern Protestantism.

It is impossible to be saved under Jesus' Gospel without the indwelling of the Spirit; there is no "second baptism of the Spirit", it is just one receiving --- after belief, Acts11:17. Acts8 implies they did not have full faith yet, they didn't understand the depth of what faith is.

Obfuscate
Jul 10th 2014, 05:53 PM
It is not the water that saves, but the "calling on His name".

The "ONE BAPTISM" (Eph4:5), is the same one Jesus talked about in Luke12:50, and in Mark10:38; neither of those verses associate "water" with Jesus' baptism-Crucifixion, at all.

Water doesn't save Jesus does. He instituted and commisioned us to baptize and teach all to make disciples, until the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20). He said believe and be baptized you shall be saved (Mark 16:16). He said no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he's born of water and spirit (John 3:5). Paul says the church is without blemish by the washing of water by the word (Ephesians 5:26). I also find it an irreconcilable contradiction that Jesus would institute a baptism that would last until the end of time yet somehow it's not the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5. If you would like to believe that fine. Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38 fit perfectly as baptism with blood or water testify the same to the Spirit as John so clearly points out:

1 John 5:6-8 - This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

This is what the Holy Spirit lead the Church to believe for 2,000 years. You believe something that wasn't believed until about 400 years ago. It is all Scriptural and fits perfectly.


It is impossible to be saved under Jesus' Gospel without the indwelling of the Spirit; there is no "second baptism of the Spirit", it is just one receiving --- after belief, Acts11:17. Acts8 implies they did not have full faith yet, they didn't understand the depth of what faith is.

This is you adding "they didn't have full faith" and makes no sense anyway. How does having an apostle lay hands on someone make them more faithful? It says nothing of the sort, it says they believed and were baptized. I gave a solid interpretation before so refer to that but you must understand the Holy Spirit works in different ways. The Holy Spirit is a seal and promise to those who believe, repent, and are baptized (Acts 2:38 - Mark 16:16 - 1 Peter 3:21) but it also comes in power and in prayer:

They can receive the indwelling:

John 20:22 - And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

Notice how the Apostles who already received the Holy Spirit then received it with power later:

Acts 2:2-4 - And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

and again in prayer:

Acts 4:31 - And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

The Holy Spirit in Acts 8 is the Holy Spirit with power that lead to miracles (Acts 8:13).

petrobb
Jul 10th 2014, 10:36 PM
You are clear - yet using that line of reasoning, (which does have merit), then we can also say that Jesus was circumcised, the Apostles were circumcised and Paul instructed Timothy to be circumcised. It was a requirement to receive the promise as given to Abraham. God killed people who weren't circumcised. So obviously all new believers should be circumcised. This was a serious question which was resolved in Acts 15. Again the fact that there is a clear statement of what should be done that does NOT include water baptism is telling.
What I think we have to be clear about is what the purpose of water baptism is and why it was done.
In South Korea in many churches they have a time when everybody prays out loud all at the same time. It can be a complete nonsense or something refreshing. It seems contrary to Paul's teaching about order, yet sometimes the Spirit is palpable in that time of prayer. Why do I bring this up?
For two reasons:
1) When China and then Korea had revival 100 years ago, one of the things that happened was that people were caught up by God's Spirit and couldn't help praying ALL at the same time - John Wesley witnessed the same thing with revival when he preached. He tried to stop it until he realised it was God at work, convicting people of sin and anointing them, in fact they were scenes reminiscent of Acts 2. However when the revival spirit stopped, people continued the form, even though the power was NOT there in the same way. This is a classic problem believers face of starting new traditions based on the outward act.
2) Sometimes God does things which on the face of it a contrary to His revealed will. It takes discernment to understanding His Spirit and its moving - are these people drunk? So even though the move of the Spirit in revival has gone, God still honours those who honour him.

Water baptism had a purpose and it was bound up within the Mosaic Law - it was of particular relevance to Jews. It also makes sense to Muslims because of the same root idea that you need to be clean in order to meet with God. There were massive jars of water available for washing in the Temple. This was ceremonial washing and this is why water baptism is sometimes seen as washing in the NT. However I want you to notice the first miracle as according to John.
Jesus turned water (from massive jars) into wine. He is the one from whom we drink and will never thirst. He is the one whose death we celebrate when we eat the bread and drink the wine. Jesus gives the meaning to washing in water.
Again note what Jesus did in John 13 - a clear indication about status and water - He was there servant making them clean. Note though that He didn't wash them all over as Peter suggested "for they were already clean", but they ONLY needed their feet washing.
Water baptism was for repentance and forgiveness. Yet we don't need this any longer, we have Jesus to go to.
Therefore ALL water baptism prior to His death, resurrection and ascension is under the Mosaic Law. Yet we see people continue to do what they know. There were those who were water baptised, yet were NOT in the right place with God, this because they received this baptism of repentance and forgiveness, and NOT baptism of Jesus.

So in conclusion, we do see the apostles baptising, however we mustn't confuse doing this with the actual requirement of being immersed in Him, through repentance and accepting His forgiveness. One model for the Jew, which may also be right for others, but is NOT a REQUIREMENT of God. It is NOT a New Covenant thing, but an Old Covenant thing given fresh and more complete meaning through the New.

your error lies in seeing baptism as related to OT washings. but this is not so. Baptism is primarily based on the OT Scripture which spoke of the pouring out of the Spirit (Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-4). Baptism is a picture of receiving life in the Spirit.

Look at John's preaching. it was not about being washed with water but with fruitbearing which results from rain. He was demonstrating that the rain of the Holy Spirit would soon fall when the Messiah came. Those who were baptised by John were declaring their desire to experience the Spirit. It was something totally new. Christians were baptised as a sign that the Holy Spirit had come upon them. It was a sign of dying to sin and living to God. A sign of renewal.

Gadgeteer
Jul 11th 2014, 04:29 AM
Water doesn't save Jesus does. He instituted and commissioned us to baptize and teach all to make disciples, until the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20). He said believe and be baptized you shall be saved (Mark 16:16).But never does it say "unbaptized is unsaved".


He said no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he's born of water and spirit (John 3:5).Don't make "WATER-FLESH" into waterbaptism when waterbaptism is nowhere in view. John3:5 simply repeats verse 6; we must be born BOTH of flesh/water AND of spirit/Spirit.


Paul says the church is without blemish by the washing of water by the word (Ephesians 5:26).Is it the WORD or the WATER that cleanses?


"(water) baptism now saves you, not as cleansing of dirt from the flesh, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience." 1Pet3:21


I also find it an irreconcilable contradiction that Jesus would institute a baptism that would last until the end of time yet somehow it's not the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5.Let's be methodical and resolve this.

Luke12:50:

"But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!

This has nothing to do with waterbaptism --- agreed?

Mark10:38:

"Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"

Again, nothing to do with water --- agree or disagree?

The "baptism-of-Jesus-with-which-WE-are-baptized" --- that's completely waterless. Any way to deny this?


"How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
for he who has died is freed from sin."

Rom6:2-7 --- is there any denying that THIS "uniting-with-Christ", is the same "baptism-of-Christ-with-which-we-are-to-be-baptized"?

So where is the water?

Eph4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". Why does this have to be water, if Lk12:50 wasn't, Mk10:38 wasn't, Matt3:11 wasn't, and Rom6:2-7 wasn't?

This can be ignored, but not answered (not consistent with what you were saying about "waterbaptism"), can it?


If you would like to believe that fine. Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38 fit perfectly as baptism with blood or water testify the same to the Spirit as John so clearly points out:

1 John 5:6-8 - This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.Luke12:50 has nothing to do with water; Jesus was ALREADY waterbaptized, and didn't get dipped again. It's His DEATH, only.

Mark10:38 is our being "united in His death and resurrection", identically as Romans6:2-7 is; no water in view.


This is what the Holy Spirit led the Church to believe for 2,000 years. You believe something that wasn't believed until about 400 years ago. It is all Scriptural and fits perfectly.You know, I don't care what was believed a thousand years ago, 400 years ago, or LAST WEEK! We can acknowledge Luke12:50 and Mark10:38 and Rom6:2-7, or we can ignore Scripture.


This is you adding "they didn't have full faith" and makes no sense anyway."Receiving the Holy Spirit" is part of salvation; they did not have the Spirit yet. Period.


How does having an apostle lay hands on someone make them more faithful? It says nothing of the sort, it says they believed and were baptized. I gave a solid interpretation before so refer to that but you must understand the Holy Spirit works in different ways. The Holy Spirit is a seal and promise to those who believe, repent, and are baptized (Acts 2:38 - Mark 16:16 - 1 Peter 3:21) but it also comes in power and in prayer:

They can receive the indwelling:

John 20:22 - And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

Notice how the Apostles who already received the Holy Spirit then received it with power later:

Acts 2:2-4 - And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

and again in prayer:

Acts 4:31 - And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

The Holy Spirit in Acts 8 is the Holy Spirit with power that lead to miracles (Acts 8:13).

Nevertheless, RECEIVING the Spirit is part of salvation. Cornelius & company were fully saved, but had not yet been dipped; whatever you think about Acts8, chapter 10 is enough to overturn the "baptism-part-of-salvation" idea.

Boo
Jul 11th 2014, 09:14 AM
It's the old "verse doesn't say water so it cannot imply water" technique!

(Of course, the verses that do contain the word water were merely a coincidence.)

It is good that we have those who can break down salvation to the minimum requirements. We would not want to do anything more than absolutely necessary, you know. The study of soteriology is critical in leading people to Christ. If people think that they also have to get wet, they might not show up.

I wonder what Jesus thinks about those who tell others that Jesus was being foolish to tell His disciples to go baptize the new disciples? Doesn't He know that it is only the Holy Spirit who changes the new believer?

Obfuscate
Jul 11th 2014, 10:25 AM
Let's be methodical and resolve this.

Luke12:50:
"But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!

This has nothing to do with waterbaptism --- agreed?

Mark10:38:
"Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"



Eph4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". Why does this have to be water.

Jesus is talking about real death and suffering in Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38. This is real baptism with blood, not some faith baptism. When was your martyrdom when you received this baptism? I already showed how baptism in blood and water all testify to the Spirit the same as they agree (1 John 5:6-8). Most of us are baptized in water not in blood. It's baptism that unites us in Christ's death (Romans 6:3-4 - Colossians 2:12). The word you use "water baptism" is a word nowhere found in the Bible. Christians have always known what baptism is because their Lord instituted one then he commanded it till the end of time. It seems strange to me that so many evangelicals take it so lightly.

Gadgeteer
Jul 11th 2014, 01:09 PM
It's the old "verse doesn't say water so it cannot imply water" technique!It's a whole lot stronger than that, Boo. Take Matthew3:11:


"I baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Spirit"

There is no way to make this about "water, even if it does not say water". The issue is not that it does not say "water" --- no, it says "not water BUT (something other!)".

It's the same in Luke12:50 --- Jesus was already waterbaptized, His "baptism-to-be-baptized-with" (which distressed Him greatly until it was done!) is something OTHER than water!

Now --- Mark10:38 WE are to be baptized with the baptism Jesus was baptized with; Jesus asked "ARE YOU WILLING?" It takes no great effort to get wet, but it DOES take great effort to DIE!

1. Jesus will baptize NOT with water BUT with the Spirit.
2. Jesus will BE baptized not with water, but with death;
3. We are to be baptized with Jesus' baptism --- "are we willing?"

This is all about dying to sin (united in His crucifixion!) but made alive new creations (united in His resurrection!). It has nothing to do with water!

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism-which-Jesus-was-baptized-with-that-distressed-Him-greatly-until-it-was-done" (Eph4:5)

Any way to make Eph4:5 into "One WATER-DIPPING"? There isn't, is there? Not unless we actually SCRATCH OUT Luke12:50 and Mark10:38 and Matt3:11 and Rom6:2-7 and all other verses that speak about "dying to sin but being made alive to God through Jesus"!


(Of course, the verses that do contain the word water were merely a coincidence.)There are verses about "water-dipping"; 1Pet3:21 is one. Acts2:38 is another, and Acts22:16, Mark16:16, etcetera; none of those say "undipped will perish".


It is good that we have those who can break down salvation to the minimum requirements. We would not want to do anything more than absolutely necessary, you know. The study of soteriology is critical in leading people to Christ. If people think that they also have to get wet, they might not show up.Just because the Greek "baptizo" is used, does not mean it has to be WATER. Our "baptism-in-the-Spirit" in Matt3:11 is not water, neither is the "baptism-of-fire-for-sinners" (Matt3:11-12). It's not water in Luke12:50 and Mark10:38; now either Eph4:5 connects directly to Luke12:50 and Mark10:38 (there's nothing else it could be), or "one baptism" is NOT "the baptism of Jesus that WE are to be baptized with". Of course it's Jesus' baptism, which is SEPARATE from water.


I wonder what Jesus thinks about those who tell others that Jesus was being foolish to tell His disciples to go baptize the new disciples? Doesn't He know that it is only the Holy Spirit who changes the new believer?The Spirit can be received before water-dipping (Acts10:45-47), at water-baptism (1Pet3:21, Acts22:16), or after water-dipping (Acts8:16). Clearly salvation has nothing to do with water-dipping; it is "calling on His NAME" that saves, Acts22:16, Rom10:13!

Gadgeteer
Jul 11th 2014, 01:18 PM
Jesus is talking about real death and suffering in Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38. This is real baptism with blood, not some faith baptism. When was your martyrdom when you received this baptism? I already showed how baptism in blood and water all testify to the Spirit the same as they agree (1 John 5:6-8). Most of us are baptized in water not in blood.The BAPTISM in Luke12:50, has NOTHING TO DO with water. Neither does the BAPTISM in Mark10:38.

In Matt3:11 there are THREE baptisms --- only ONE is "water"!
1. Water for repentance (John's baptism)
2. Spirit for salvation (Jesus' baptism)
3. Fire for sinners (eternal judgment in a lake of fire)

#2 is the SAME as Luke12:50, Mark10:38, Eph4:5, Rom6:2-7, etcetera!


It's baptism that unites us in Christ's death (Romans 6:3-4 - Colossians 2:12). Absolutely not! BAPTISM IS DEATH NOT WATER in Romans6:2-7!

Look what you're trying to do -- Paul wrote:

"died/crucified/buried/immersed/UNITED in Jesus' death and resurrection"

You're insisting it is:

"immersed-in-WATER-to-BE-died/crucified/buried/united"

No! It is "IMMERSED IN DEATH AND LIFE"!!!!! Not "immersed in WATER to be immersed in death and life"!

Any way to deny what Paul wrote?


The word you use "water baptism" is a word nowhere found in the Bible. Christians have always known what baptism is because their Lord instituted one then he commanded it till the end of time. It seems strange to me that so many evangelicals take it so lightly.

The word "baptizo" just means to IMMERSE. It can be WATER, it can be SPIRIT and CHRIST and DEATH and LIFE, and it can be FIRE FOR SINNERS.

I have it on good authority that the baptism of "fire-for-sinners" (Matt3:11-12) has nothing to do with water; and neither does "immersion-in-the-Spirit". And neither does the BAPTISM in Luke12:50, nor the one in Mark10:38.

Because it is established that "baptism-in-the-Spirit" has nothing to do with water in Matt3:11 ("I with water but He with SOMETHING ELSE"), and "baptism-in-death" has nothing to do with water in Lk12:50 and Mk10:38, why does Eph4:5 have to be about WATER (especially when Mk10:38 says WE are to be baptized with Jesus' baptism if we are WILLING)?

In what Universe did Paul intend Eph4:5 to talk about "one water-dipping"?

Boo
Jul 12th 2014, 08:30 AM
It's a whole lot stronger than that, Boo. Take Matthew3:11:


"I baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Spirit"

There is no way to make this about "water, even if it does not say water". The issue is not that it does not say "water" --- no, it says "not water BUT (something other!)".

It's the same in Luke12:50 --- Jesus was already waterbaptized, His "baptism-to-be-baptized-with" (which distressed Him greatly until it was done!) is something OTHER than water!

Now --- Mark10:38 WE are to be baptized with the baptism Jesus was baptized with; Jesus asked "ARE YOU WILLING?" It takes no great effort to get wet, but it DOES take great effort to DIE!

1. Jesus will baptize NOT with water BUT with the Spirit.
2. Jesus will BE baptized not with water, but with death;
3. We are to be baptized with Jesus' baptism --- "are we willing?"

This is all about dying to sin (united in His crucifixion!) but made alive new creations (united in His resurrection!). It has nothing to do with water!

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism-which-Jesus-was-baptized-with-that-distressed-Him-greatly-until-it-was-done" (Eph4:5)

Any way to make Eph4:5 into "One WATER-DIPPING"? There isn't, is there? Not unless we actually SCRATCH OUT Luke12:50 and Mark10:38 and Matt3:11 and Rom6:2-7 and all other verses that speak about "dying to sin but being made alive to God through Jesus"!

There are verses about "water-dipping"; 1Pet3:21 is one. Acts2:38 is another, and Acts22:16, Mark16:16, etcetera; none of those say "undipped will perish".

Just because the Greek "baptizo" is used, does not mean it has to be WATER. Our "baptism-in-the-Spirit" in Matt3:11 is not water, neither is the "baptism-of-fire-for-sinners" (Matt3:11-12). It's not water in Luke12:50 and Mark10:38; now either Eph4:5 connects directly to Luke12:50 and Mark10:38 (there's nothing else it could be), or "one baptism" is NOT "the baptism of Jesus that WE are to be baptized with". Of course it's Jesus' baptism, which is SEPARATE from water.

The Spirit can be received before water-dipping (Acts10:45-47), at water-baptism (1Pet3:21, Acts22:16), or after water-dipping (Acts8:16). Clearly salvation has nothing to do with water-dipping; it is "calling on His NAME" that saves, Acts22:16, Rom10:13!

I wish Jesus had known all this. He probably would not have commanded us to go Baptize the disciples we make. He would realize that man cannot baptize anyone by the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

Makes me wonder why Jesus said what He did. Perhaps He didn't speak Greek.

Gadgeteer
Jul 12th 2014, 03:06 PM
I wish Jesus had known all this. Heh heh heh! :-)


He probably would not have commanded us to go Baptize the disciples we make. He would realize that man cannot baptize anyone by the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

Makes me wonder why Jesus said what He did. Perhaps He didn't speak Greek.

He endorsed waterbaptism; it's just not part of salvation, it is part of "being saved" (having been saved).

I think many people read "baptizo-immersed" in Rom6:3-4, and "baptism" in Eph4:5, and don't realize that Lk12:50 and Mk10:38 and Matt3:11-12 apply. We are "immersed" into Jesus, joined to Him in both death and in resurrection.

This is not an important issue, Boo; you and I can disagree on this, but agree on the basic things. None of us have all the answers; Jesus will come some day soon, and He'll tell us "Gadget was righ---" ...errr, He'll tell us which one is right!

:hug:

paidforinfull
Jul 12th 2014, 03:17 PM
I see water baptism as an act of obedience, and also as a visible acknowledgement that we've accepted Christ Jesus as our Savior.

B.

percho
Jul 12th 2014, 04:29 PM
It's a whole lot stronger than that, Boo. Take Matthew3:11:


"I baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Spirit"

There is no way to make this about "water, even if it does not say water". The issue is not that it does not say "water" --- no, it says "not water BUT (something other!)".

It's the same in Luke12:50 --- Jesus was already waterbaptized, His "baptism-to-be-baptized-with" (which distressed Him greatly until it was done!) is something OTHER than water!

Now --- Mark10:38 WE are to be baptized with the baptism Jesus was baptized with; Jesus asked "ARE YOU WILLING?" It takes no great effort to get wet, but it DOES take great effort to DIE!

1. Jesus will baptize NOT with water BUT with the Spirit.
2. Jesus will BE baptized not with water, but with death;
3. We are to be baptized with Jesus' baptism --- "are we willing?"

This is all about dying to sin (united in His crucifixion!) but made alive new creations (united in His resurrection!). It has nothing to do with water!

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism-which-Jesus-was-baptized-with-that-distressed-Him-greatly-until-it-was-done" (Eph4:5)

Any way to make Eph4:5 into "One WATER-DIPPING"? There isn't, is there? Not unless we actually SCRATCH OUT Luke12:50 and Mark10:38 and Matt3:11 and Rom6:2-7 and all other verses that speak about "dying to sin but being made alive to God through Jesus"!

There are verses about "water-dipping"; 1Pet3:21 is one. Acts2:38 is another, and Acts22:16, Mark16:16, etcetera; none of those say "undipped will perish".

Just because the Greek "baptizo" is used, does not mean it has to be WATER. Our "baptism-in-the-Spirit" in Matt3:11 is not water, neither is the "baptism-of-fire-for-sinners" (Matt3:11-12). It's not water in Luke12:50 and Mark10:38; now either Eph4:5 connects directly to Luke12:50 and Mark10:38 (there's nothing else it could be), or "one baptism" is NOT "the baptism of Jesus that WE are to be baptized with". Of course it's Jesus' baptism, which is SEPARATE from water.

The Spirit can be received before water-dipping (Acts10:45-47), at water-baptism (1Pet3:21, Acts22:16), or after water-dipping (Acts8:16). Clearly salvation has nothing to do with water-dipping; it is "calling on His NAME" that saves, Acts22:16, Rom10:13!

Give it a little thought and let me know your thoughts.

I am not sure that to drink of the cup isn't to suffer unto death, therefore for Jesus beginning in the garden all the way to, "Father into your hands I commend my spirit," and baptism to be regeneration and renewing of spirit Holy.

Matt 3:15 He suffered him = Father into your hands I commend my spirit (life).

Matt 3:15 Being baptized vp Aor Pas Nom Sg m the Jesus stepped up straightway from the water = regenerated, made alive again, and the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: = renewing of spirit Holy.

grams
Jul 13th 2014, 11:02 AM
From our Church :

All saved persons have been made members of the Body of Christ by One divine baptism (this is baptism into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit). By that ONE BAPTISM, every member of the Body of Christ is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. In light of the statement concerning the "ONE BAPTISM" in Ephesians 4:5 and the statement in I Corinthians 1:17

grams
Jul 13th 2014, 11:03 AM
From our church:



http://www.rightlydividing.org/aboutus.html

grams
Jul 13th 2014, 11:05 AM
From our Church:

All saved persons have been made members of the Body of Christ by One divine baptism (this is baptism into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit). By that ONE BAPTISM, every member of the Body of Christ is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. In light of the statement concerning the "ONE BAPTISM" in Ephesians 4:5 and the statement in I Corinthians 1:17

ChangedByHim
Jul 13th 2014, 12:57 PM
From our church:



http://www.rightlydividing.org/aboutus.html

Water baptism has no place? Is this what you also believe grams?

RogerW
Jul 13th 2014, 09:35 PM
Water baptism has no place? Is this what you also believe grams?

My question would be, is water baptism the sign and seal of regeneration? Or the sign and seal of Covenant inclusion? IMHO the dispute is drawn from a misunderstanding of Covenant Theology!

paidforinfull
Jul 13th 2014, 10:49 PM
My question would be, is water baptism the sign and seal of regeneration? Or the sign and seal of Covenant inclusion? IMHO the dispute is drawn from a misunderstanding of Covenant Theology!

I don't have time to look up verses now, but would do so later if needed. As far as my understanding goes, the Holy Spirit is the seal of regeneration.

As far as water baptism goes: it is something God requires us to do - not as a favor, but as an act of obedience. It is not necessary for salvation, but seems to serve as an outward sign to others that something inside us has changed: that we have truly accepted Christ as our Savior.

(Anyway, if someone's not clear on the need for water baptism, it's better to go ahead and get baptized anyway, just to be sure. Why not? We've nothing to loose by doing it. As I always say: rather safe than sorry :). )

Blessings,
B.

Sojourner
Jul 14th 2014, 12:07 AM
Cornelius and his household were commanded by Peter to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ after they had already been baptized in the Holy Spirit. There must be a reason.

When Jesus showed up at the Jordan River, John the baptizer questioned Jesus' desire to be baptized--saying that he himself was in need of being baptized in the Holy Ghost by Jesus. The Lord responded, saying that it was needful and proper in order "to fulfill all righteousness." If Jesus, Who did not need to be baptized in water, did so as an example, certainly believers should not neglect to do so in obedience to instructions clearly conveyed in a number of passages in the New Testament.

Boo
Jul 14th 2014, 09:47 AM
Cornelius and his household were commanded by Peter to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ after they had already been baptized in the Holy Spirit. There must be a reason.

When Jesus showed up at the Jordan River, John the baptizer questioned Jesus' desire to be baptized--saying that he himself was in need of being baptized in the Holy Ghost by Jesus. The Lord responded, saying that it was needful and proper in order "to fulfill all righteousness." If Jesus, Who did not need to be baptized in water, did so as an example, certainly believers should not neglect to do so in obedience to instructions clearly conveyed in a number of passages in the New Testament.

This is the default reply when people cannot agree on the requirement's source.

He said "do it." I guess that is really all we need to know.

grams
Jul 14th 2014, 10:10 AM
Water baptism has no place? Is this what you also believe grams?


We are now all Gentiles.

No water is used.

Upon Belief , we have it all ! [ If we understand Gods word? ]


NO WATER !

ChangedByHim
Jul 14th 2014, 11:34 AM
We are now all Gentiles.

No water is used.

Upon Belief , we have it all ! [ If we understand Gods word? ]


NO WATER !


Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Sojourner
Jul 14th 2014, 02:34 PM
He said "do it." I guess that is really all we need to know.

That was my point.

svfox
Jul 15th 2014, 08:39 AM
But it is splitting hairs.

John 14:9

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?


Jesus is the almight, all powerful. He is the I am.

grams
Jul 15th 2014, 11:09 AM
I guess a lot of people do not read the bible daily ! And get help from the church !

Our Tom is a great teacher ! We sure did get Blessed in going to this church !

First of all !
What you need to remember is !

Who Is talking and to Whom ?

Did Jesus go to the Cross for our Sins ?

Knowing a time past - But Now - And Ages to Come !
That really helps understand the bible !

Romans - Philemon . Are the books for us in these days.

Romans and Eph. really help me understand this much better !

I hope it will help you also ! ? ! ? !

Boo
Jul 16th 2014, 09:32 AM
I guess a lot of people do not read the bible daily ! And get help from the church !

Our Tom is a great teacher ! We sure did get Blessed in going to this church !

First of all !
What you need to remember is !

Who Is talking and to Whom ?

Did Jesus go to the Cross for our Sins ?

Knowing a time past - But Now - And Ages to Come !
That really helps understand the bible !

Romans - Philemon . Are the books for us in these days.

Romans and Eph. really help me understand this much better !

I hope it will help you also ! ? ! ? !

And we have arrived at the "I'm right and you are wrong" statement. It always seems to include at least one of these thoughts such as:

1. I believe the bible and you don't.
2. You don't have the right teacher.
3. I understand and you don't.

Had to happen, didn't it?

Grams - who has more authority with the Father? Jesus or Paul?

grams
Jul 16th 2014, 10:41 AM
And we have arrived at the "I'm right and you are wrong" statement. It always seems to include at least one of these thoughts such as:

1. I believe the bible and you don't.
2. You don't have the right teacher.
3. I understand and you don't.

Had to happen, didn't it?
Grams - who has more authority with the Father? Jesus or Paul?

Boo

Who died for us at the Cross ?

And why ?

People believe that is not enough ? Why ?

watchinginawe
Jul 16th 2014, 02:11 PM
Boo

Who died for us at the Cross ?

And why ?

People believe that is not enough ? Why ?

grams, I am going to want to study more on this doctrine of not baptizing. I have seen some refrain from baptizing to stamp out any possibility of a "works based" salvation, but I don't agree with that. I already have satisfied myself that your church observes the Lord's Supper, so I don't see how water baptism couldn't be handled the same way.

Anyway, chronologically, you have:

The birth of Jesus

The ministry of Jesus

The death on the Cross of Jesus

The burial of Jesus

The resurrection of Jesus

The "Great Commission" of Jesus to preach the Gospel and to baptize

The Ascension of Jesus

The giving of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost

The rest of the Acts of the Apostles with the practice of water baptism adopted


What if someone in your Church stood up just before the Lord's Supper and said that no one should partake and when asked why offered:

Who died for us at the Cross ?

And why ?

People believe that is not enough

RogerW
Jul 16th 2014, 02:41 PM
I don't have time to look up verses now, but would do so later if needed. As far as my understanding goes, the Holy Spirit is the seal of regeneration.

As far as water baptism goes: it is something God requires us to do - not as a favor, but as an act of obedience. It is not necessary for salvation, but seems to serve as an outward sign to others that something inside us has changed: that we have truly accepted Christ as our Savior.

(Anyway, if someone's not clear on the need for water baptism, it's better to go ahead and get baptized anyway, just to be sure. Why not? We've nothing to loose by doing it. As I always say: rather safe than sorry :). )

Blessings,
B.

If water baptism serves as the "outward sign to others that something inside us has changed: that we have truly accepted Christ as our Savior", why then are many who have been baptized not saved? Does God give an outward sign of inward change that may not actually mean anything at all to some who are baptized?

The sign under the Old Covenant was circumcision. Every eight day old male MUST receive the sign or be cut off from among God's Covenantal people. But even reprobates like Ishmael and Esau received the sign. Wouldn't that prove that reprobates too can receive this outward sign of baptism? This should prove the sign itself is NOT an outward sign of an inward change. In fact if we look at the sign of baptism as evidence of salvation, are we not linking our work [baptism] to salvation? And since God requires obedience in baptism, can one who has not been baptized in water be saved?

Is it not possible that baptism, like circumcision are signs of inclusion into the Covenant Body outwardly? With the sign we are separating ourselves from the rest of the world, showing that we are in Covenant with God outwardly. Since the Word of life is given to those in Covenant with God, we have His promise that faith which leads to everlasting life comes through hearing His Word [Gospel]. For this reason we receive the sign and seal to learn of the One Who will baptize us with the Holy Spirit and life everlasting. All who participate in the outward sign have come into the outward body [church] to learn and to become His disciples, being taught how to observe all that He has commanded, that as we learn our faith in Him increases, and our understanding comes to maturity.

Blessings
RW

paidforinfull
Jul 16th 2014, 03:49 PM
If water baptism serves as the "outward sign to others that something inside us has changed: that we have truly accepted Christ as our Savior", why then are many who have been baptized not saved? Does God give an outward sign of inward change that may not actually mean anything at all to some who are baptized?

The sign under the Old Covenant was circumcision. Every eight day old male MUST receive the sign or be cut off from among God's Covenantal people. But even reprobates like Ishmael and Esau received the sign. Wouldn't that prove that reprobates too can receive this outward sign of baptism? This should prove the sign itself is NOT an outward sign of an inward change. In fact if we look at the sign of baptism as evidence of salvation, are we not linking our work [baptism] to salvation? And since God requires obedience in baptism, can one who has not been baptized in water be saved?

Is it not possible that baptism, like circumcision are signs of inclusion into the Covenant Body outwardly? With the sign we are separating ourselves from the rest of the world, showing that we are in Covenant with God outwardly. Since the Word of life is given to those in Covenant with God, we have His promise that faith which leads to everlasting life comes through hearing His Word [Gospel]. For this reason we receive the sign and seal to learn of the One Who will baptize us with the Holy Spirit and life everlasting. All who participate in the outward sign have come into the outward body [church] to learn and to become His disciples, being taught how to observe all that He has commanded, that as we learn our faith in Him increases, and our understanding comes to maturity.

Blessings
RW

Yes, you're right, it could be. Could also be both: as an outward sign to show others that we've accepted Christ (unfortunately unbelievers can also be baptized, in which case it will become obvious down the line), as well as a sign of inclusion into the Body of Christ. They're both connected, I think.

Blessings,
B.

RogerW
Jul 16th 2014, 04:02 PM
Yes, you're right, it could be. Could also be both: as an outward sign to show others that we've accepted Christ (unfortunately unbelievers can also be baptized, in which case it will become obvious down the line), as well as a sign of inclusion into the Body of Christ. They're both connected, I think.

Blessings,
B.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Believer's baptism is Biblical. Those who make a profession of faith, are instructed to be baptized in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. My point is to show that even unbelievers may partake of the sign, in the same way all 8 day old males received the sign under the Old. Therefore is the practice of infant baptism, infant inclusion into the covenant body forbidden in Scripture? I have no problem with baptism of those who make a profession of faith, but I am somewhat perplexed by the opinion that profession of faith MUST accompany baptism, thereby leaving infants out of the covenant body??? Just a particular thing with me. I don't care if one sprinkles, or dunks, I do care that infants too come into Covenant Body relationship through the sign. FWIW

blessings,

paidforinfull
Jul 16th 2014, 04:25 PM
I wouldn't disagree with that. Believer's baptism is Biblical. Those who make a profession of faith, are instructed to be baptized in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. My point is to show that even unbelievers may partake of the sign, in the same way all 8 day old males received the sign under the Old. Therefore is the practice of infant baptism, infant inclusion into the covenant body forbidden in Scripture? I have no problem with baptism of those who make a profession of faith, but I am somewhat perplexed by the opinion that profession of faith MUST accompany baptism, thereby leaving infants out of the covenant body??? Just a particular thing with me. I don't care if one sprinkles, or dunks, I do care that infants too come into Covenant Body relationship through the sign. FWIW

blessings,
I was just about finished typing up a nice long answer to this post when my kitten jumped onto the keyboard and managed to delete what I've written :P.

So, to summarize what I was going to say: I won't go as far as to compare infant circumcision to infant baptism (which I prefer to call 'Christening'). You could partly compare circumcision to the 'Believer's Baptism', but not to infant Baptism. All Christening really accomplishes is to commit the parents to raising a child in the knowledge of Christ.

If one really wants to make a case for infant Baptism it might be better to use 'Whole Household Baptisms' as examples, but imo that's spreading it a bit thin because we can't just assume that there were infants involved in the cases mentioned in the Bible such as the baptism of the jailer and his family in Acts 16:33, or Cormelius and his family in Acts 10.

B.

paidforinfull
Jul 16th 2014, 04:29 PM
He said "do it." I guess that is really all we need to know.

Yes, I agree totally. Obedience is better than sacrifice.

B.

kiravon
Jul 16th 2014, 07:34 PM
Jesus certainly is the image of his Father in every way
and reflected his qualities and attributes perfectly so
anyone who knew Jesus would have known the Father

Philippians 2:9 is interesting on this point-

After the resurrection of Christ, God 'exalted' Jesus to a superior position.
So prior to his resurrection it would seem that Jesus was less than Almighty,
in other words if Jesus had been Almighty God he could not have been exalted
any higher

Wife of Jesus
Jul 16th 2014, 07:59 PM
What do you mean which is it. My understanding is that they are refering to the same thing.

Yes, of course :) The Name of the Father, son, holy spirit IS the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Boo
Jul 17th 2014, 09:42 AM
There is a purpose for baptism, but the fights get vicious when people discuss it.

Because of the Protestant fear of being accused of believing in a "works-based salvation," the purpose is denied.

There was a time when people believed that being dunked in water saves people, and they didn't even require submission to the Lord Jesus beforehand. There was a time when "the church" would not baptize someone until they had attended school to teach people about Jesus first. They had pushed the "believe" requirement into a diploma requirement.

Man can mess up everything he gets his hands on.

Is it not better to keep it simple and do what Jesus said?

Become a disciple, be baptized, and learn all that Jesus commanded.

grams
Jul 17th 2014, 10:29 AM
I do pray you can understand this ! :)

Eph.3:

1
For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:


3
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

eph. 4

4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Col.1:

26
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Col:2
10
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.



14

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

ll 2:

15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

watchinginawe
Jul 17th 2014, 12:09 PM
grams,

We can look closer if you like. But we have the Scripture where the Apostle Paul came behind Apollos at Ephesus. Apollos had baptized them in water like John the Baptist did, towards repentance. Paul baptized them again in water in the name of the Lord Jesus, the leaders of the church, the ones he is writing to in your post, yet again.

The letter to the Ephesians in no way tells them to quit baptizing in water.

The Colossians passage does not seem to "blot out" your practice of the Lord's Supper. I don't understand the persecution of Baptism as anything different than the Lord's Supper.

I am sure Pastor Tom is a wonderful Pastor. These kinds of dogmatic issues come up. I went to your web site to see what his objection to baptism might be, but couldn't discern it. The closest I could come is that your church does not see it as an ordinance of Jesus. I am curious where the linage of that doctrine comes from, but it surely is not well represented in most of Christendom.

Here is the passage:

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

paidforinfull
Jul 17th 2014, 12:37 PM
There is a purpose for baptism, but the fights get vicious when people discuss it.

Because of the Protestant fear of being accused of believing in a "works-based salvation," the purpose is denied.

There was a time when people believed that being dunked in water saves people, and they didn't even require submission to the Lord Jesus beforehand. There was a time when "the church" would not baptize someone until they had attended school to teach people about Jesus first. They had pushed the "believe" requirement into a diploma requirement.

Man can mess up everything he gets his hands on.

Is it not better to keep it simple and do what Jesus said?

Become a disciple, be baptized, and learn all that Jesus commanded.

Oi, I wish I could rep you again, Boo, but I've got to rep others first. Yes, you are just so right.

Blessings again,
B.

Gadgeteer
Jul 17th 2014, 01:39 PM
I was just about finished typing up a nice long answer to this post when my kitten jumped onto the keyboard and managed to delete what I've written :P.Ohhhh, bad kitty! Bad!!! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-027.gif


So, to summarize what I was going to say: I won't go as far as to compare infant circumcision to infant baptism (which I prefer to call 'Christening'). You could partly compare circumcision to the 'Believer's Baptism', but not to infant Baptism. All Christening really accomplishes is to commit the parents to raising a child in the knowledge of Christ.I was raised Presbyterian; infant-baptism is the same, parents promising to raise a child towards God. It does not supplant adult-baptism.


If one really wants to make a case for infant Baptism it might be better to use 'Whole Household Baptisms' as examples, but imo that's spreading it a bit thin because we can't just assume that there were infants involved in the cases mentioned in the Bible such as the baptism of the jailer and his family in Acts 16:33, or Cormelius and his family in Acts 10.

B.

The point of Cornelius is that they were fully saved, but not yet dipped. Those in Acts8:16 had been dipped but not filled with the Spirit. So waterbaptism accompanies salvation (1Pet3:21), precedes salvation (Acts8:16), or follows salvation (Acts10:47). It cannot be part of salvation.

Part of what confuses people is that the word "baptizo-immerse" does not always mean water. Eph4:5 and Rom6:3-4 have nothing to do with water, those refer to "immersion-into-CHRIST", Lk12:50 and Mark10:38 (also waterless verses).

We are "died/crucified/buried/baptizo-immersed/UNITED in Jesus' death and in His resurrection (Rm6:2-7) --- by faith, not by water.

paidforinfull
Jul 17th 2014, 04:38 PM
Ohhhh, bad kitty! Bad!!! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-027.gif

I was raised Presbyterian; infant-baptism is the same, parents promising to raise a child towards God. It does not supplant adult-baptism.



The point of Cornelius is that they were fully saved, but not yet dipped. Those in Acts8:16 had been dipped but not filled with the Spirit. So waterbaptism accompanies salvation (1Pet3:21), precedes salvation (Acts8:16), or follows salvation (Acts10:47). It cannot be part of salvation.

Part of what confuses people is that the word "baptizo-immerse" does not always mean water. Eph4:5 and Rom6:3-4 have nothing to do with water, those refer to "immersion-into-CHRIST", Lk12:50 and Mark10:38 (also waterless verses).

We are "died/crucified/buried/baptizo-immersed/UNITED in Jesus' death and in His resurrection (Rm6:2-7) --- by faith, not by water.
Oh, a VERY bad kitty indeed. But super cute too :). She keeps us on our toes.

I always associate baptism with either water baptism, or the baptism of the Spirit.

I don't believe that a person needs to be water baptized in order to be saved, but rather see it as an act of obedience. God said it, so I'd rather do it than not: I'll rather err on the side of doing it and maybe misinterpreting the Scriptures, than not doing it and maybe misinterpreting the Scriptures. I hope this makes sense :D.

Blessings,
B.

Obfuscate
Jul 17th 2014, 11:15 PM
I don't believe that a person needs to be water baptized in order to be saved, but rather see it as an act of obedience.

Why would the Apostle Paul not have his sins forgiven until his sins were washed away when he was baptized? We know from reading the book of Acts that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and announced who he was and Paul then called him Lord. Paul went on to obey the commands of Christ and while he waited for 3 days was fasting and praying. When was the last time you fasted and prayed 3 days?

Why would Peter on the day of Pentecost tell the people when they asked what they were to do after they heard the Gospel tell them to repent and be baptized? Going further saying it was for the forgiveness of sins and they WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Why would Jesus confuse us by saying "believe and be baptized and you shall be saved" if baptism had nothing to do with salvation?

Why would Jesus say no one can see the kingdom of Heaven unless born of water and spirit if water was not needed?

Why would Paul say the church is clean by the washing of water by the word if water was not involved?

Why would Christ command we baptize and teach all to make disciples until the end of time if baptism is merely a symbol?

Why would Peter say “baptism now saves you” as a clear conscience toward God, knowing we can look to our baptism and God’s promises. (1 Peter 3:21)?

No one denies God can save outside of baptism rather we know he does save by baptism and he commands us to do so. It’s not a symbol or obedience it’s a washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says (Titus 3:5-7).

svfox
Jul 17th 2014, 11:16 PM
The whole point is to get people hooked onto the vine

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing

So why wonder and dabble in matters when you can go right to the vine. I only care that they know Jesus and become a branch.

The order doesn't matter.

paidforinfull
Jul 18th 2014, 01:06 AM
Why would the Apostle Paul not have his sins forgiven until his sins were washed away when he was baptized? We know from reading the book of Acts that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and announced who he was and Paul then called him Lord. Paul went on to obey the commands of Christ and while he waited for 3 days was fasting and praying. When was the last time you fasted and prayed 3 days?

Why would Peter on the day of Pentecost tell the people when they asked what they were to do after they heard the Gospel tell them to repent and be baptized? Going further saying it was for the forgiveness of sins and they WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Why would Jesus confuse us by saying "believe and be baptized and you shall be saved" if baptism had nothing to do with salvation?

Why would Jesus say no one can see the kingdom of Heaven unless born of water and spirit if water was not needed?

Why would Paul say the church is clean by the washing of water by the word if water was not involved?

Why would Christ command we baptize and teach all to make disciples until the end of time if baptism is merely a symbol?

Why would Peter say “baptism now saves you” as a clear conscience toward God, knowing we can look to our baptism and God’s promises. (1 Peter 3:21)?

No one denies God can save outside of baptism rather we know he does save by baptism and he commands us to do so. It’s not a symbol or obedience it’s a washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says (Titus 3:5-7).

The problem is that not everyone who gets baptized gets saved.

Don't get me wrong - I do believe Christians need to get baptized because Jesus told us to. I also know people who have never been baptized (I'm talking of the believer's baptism), but they are definitely saved.

B

Obfuscate
Jul 18th 2014, 01:16 AM
The problem is that not everyone who gets baptized gets saved.

Who said they did? I don't deny branches get cut off or that some get baptized for false reasons (please parents or a spouse etc.)


Don't get me wrong - I do believe Christians need to get baptized because Jesus told us to

Good, but he said a lot more than that about it, as did Paul, as did Peter as referenced in the verses I brought up.


I also know people who have never been baptized (I'm talking of the believer's baptism), but they are definitely saved.

Maybe they are? You don't get to judge, nor do I, nor does that refute the verses you didn't address.

paidforinfull
Jul 18th 2014, 01:42 AM
Maybe they are? You don't get to judge, nor do I, nor does that refute the verses you didn't address.

Obfuscate, if you read back to see what I've posted before you'll understand what I'm saying. I'm saying people CAN be saved even though they're not baptized; I'm also saying that I always recommend people get baptized because Jesus told us to. I got baptized as an adult believer; not because I thought I wasn't saved, but simply because I want to be obedient to God. You see, I don't see that it's about me, but about God. Now, regardless of whether a person interprets the Bible this way or that way, I'll rather be sure I did the right thing, wouldn't you agree?

(I'm not going to argue Scripture interpretation with you right now, because it's bedtime here.)

Blessings,
B.

Gadgeteer
Jul 18th 2014, 05:43 AM
The whole point is to get people hooked onto the vine

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing

So why wonder and dabble in matters when you can go right to the vine. I only care that they know Jesus and become a branch.

The order doesn't matter.
What connects us to the Vine? Faith.

Can our position in the Vine be broken by faithlessness? And those who are broken -- can they be restored if they return to belief?

Rom11:18-23!

Gadgeteer
Jul 18th 2014, 05:55 AM
Why would the Apostle Paul not have his sins forgiven until his sins were washed away when he was baptized?Since when does WATER wash away sins? It doesn't --- calling on Jesus' name does! Acts22:16, Rom10:13, 1Cor6:11!


We know from reading the book of Acts that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and announced who he was and Paul then called him Lord. Paul went on to obey the commands of Christ and while he waited for 3 days was fasting and praying. When was the last time you fasted and prayed 3 days?

Why would Peter on the day of Pentecost tell the people when they asked what they were to do after they heard the Gospel tell them to repent and be baptized? Going further saying it was for the forgiveness of sins and they WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.Again, water does not forgive sins; calling on Jesus' name does. 1Jn1:9


Why would Jesus confuse us by saying "believe and be baptized and you shall be saved" if baptism had nothing to do with salvation?Show us the verse that says "he who is not dipped is condemned"?


Why would Jesus say no one can see the kingdom of Heaven unless born of water and spirit if water was not needed?Come on --- "hudor", water-as-the-fundamental-element, means FLESH there. John3:5 and 6 say the same thing.


Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is water-baptized/BORN-OF-THE-SPIRIT and also BORN OF THE SPIRIT he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

That's silly, and no one can deny it's silly. "Born-of-the-Spirit" twice???


"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water/flesh and (also born of) the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Now THAT makes perfect sense!


Why would Paul say the church is clean by the washing of water by the word if water was not involved?It's the washing of HOLY SPIRIT REGENERATION that really cleanses our souls.


Why would Christ command we baptize and teach all to make disciples until the end of time if baptism is merely a symbol?Because everyone got waterbaptized; it's just a sacrament.


Why would Peter say “baptism now saves you” as a clear conscience toward God, knowing we can look to our baptism and God’s promises. (1 Peter 3:21)?It is an APPEAL to God for a clear conscience --- which is REPENTANCE.

Repentance and calling on Jesus' name is what saves; not getting wet.


No one denies God can save outside of baptism rather we know he does save by baptism and he commands us to do so. It’s not a symbol or obedience it’s a washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says (Titus 3:5-7).

No, REGENERATION is the "washing" in Titus3:5-7, water is nowhere in view! Washing OF regeneration --- not "washing of WATER to CONFER regeneration". Take it at face value, not with words added...

Gadgeteer
Jul 18th 2014, 05:59 AM
Oh, a VERY bad kitty indeed. But super cute too :). She keeps us on our toes.Whoever owns a cat or a dog, knows they have a PERSON. They are capable of relating to us, TEASING us, and absolutely expressing LOVE. I got adopted by a kitty years ago; and she was very much "my girl", really loved me.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-030.gif


I always associate baptism with either water baptism, or the baptism of the Spirit.Well, Matt3:11-12 speaks of a "baptism of fire for sinners". :eek:


I don't believe that a person needs to be water baptized in order to be saved, but rather see it as an act of obedience. God said it, so I'd rather do it than not: I'll rather err on the side of doing it and maybe misinterpreting the Scriptures, than not doing it and maybe misinterpreting the Scriptures. I hope this makes sense :D.It does make purrfect sense.
Sorry, perfect sense; where WAS my mind wandering?


Blessings,
B.

:hug:

Obfuscate
Jul 18th 2014, 08:58 AM
Take it at face value, not with words added...

You can argue water doesn't mean water and the “saved” and “forgiveness of sins” in baptism verses don’t really refer to baptism but I think these arguments strengthen my points. We can let the verses speak for themselves:

Acts 22:16 - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

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.

Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Titus 3:5 - 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,

Ephesians 5:25-27- Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 - I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Matthew 28:19-20 - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Boo
Jul 18th 2014, 09:05 AM
I do pray you can understand this ! :)

Eph.3:

1
For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

eph. 4

4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Col.1:

26
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Col:2
10
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
14

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

ll 2:

15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


I believe that I understand this quite well. However, what point are you trying to prove with it?

I would think that this section of verses does not prove what you intend it to.

grams
Jul 18th 2014, 10:12 AM
Does this help ?

All saved persons have been made members of the Body of Christ by One divine baptism (this is baptism into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit). By that ONE BAPTISM, every member of the Body of Christ is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. In light of the statement concerning the "ONE BAPTISM" in Ephesians 4:5 and the statement in I Corinthians 1:17 that "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel", we affirm that water baptism has no place in God's spiritual program for the Body of Christ in this day of grace.

paidforinfull
Jul 18th 2014, 12:13 PM
Whoever owns a cat or a dog, knows they have a PERSON. They are capable of relating to us, TEASING us, and absolutely expressing LOVE. I got adopted by a kitty years ago; and she was very much "my girl", really loved me.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-030.gif

Well, Matt3:11-12 speaks of a "baptism of fire for sinners". :eek:

It does make purrfect sense.
Sorry, perfect sense; where WAS my mind wandering?

Hehe! Cats rule :pp (we have three).

Yes, how could I forget the 'baptism of fire'? (Why do you say the baptism of fire is for sinners? Wouldn't that be the same as saying the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is for sinners?
Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (KJV) )

OK, I have to admit I don't understand everything you say about water not actually meaning water and all, and I guess I'll have to do a lot more research in order to either agree or refute what you've said.

So, for now, all I can say is 'rather safe than sorry' :) (as in, 'I'd rather be obedient than not').

Blessings,
B.

paidforinfull
Jul 18th 2014, 02:08 PM
The whole point is to get people hooked onto the vine

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing

So why wonder and dabble in matters when you can go right to the vine. I only care that they know Jesus and become a branch.

The order doesn't matter.
Hey svfox :).

Well, as I see it, there's no point in getting baptized before we're saved - what would be the point?

Blessings,
B.

paidforinfull
Jul 18th 2014, 02:30 PM
Maybe they are? You don't get to judge, nor do I, nor does that refute the verses you didn't address.

Strangely enough, I can often (not always) see when a person is a true believer or not. I look at their fruit, etc. Also, if I understand 1 Cor. 5:12-13 correctly, Paul teaches us to judge those who say they are Christians "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (NIV). This is getting off topic, though ;).

Concerning the verses you asked questions about:

1. You asked: "Why would Peter say “baptism now saves you” as a clear conscience toward God, knowing we can look to our baptism and God’s promises. (1 Peter 3:21)?"
Well, Peter actually said "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God" 1 Peter 3:21(NIV). So, water is the symbol of salvation, not the medium through which we are saved. If we leave out even one word the whole meaning of a verse can change.

2. Titus 3:5 doesn't mention water. We can be washed clean by God's Spirit as well.

I do see the Believer's Baptism as an act of obedience. I also see it as a symbol of our salvation and a way to confirm that we are a true believer and a part of the Body of Christ.

Blessings,
B.

Obfuscate
Jul 18th 2014, 03:30 PM
Strangely enough, I can often (not always) see when a person is a true believer or not. I look at their fruit, etc. Also, if I understand 1 Cor. 5:12-13 correctly, Paul teaches us to judge those who say they are Christians "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (NIV). This is getting off topic, though ;).

That verse is about the churches authority to excommunicate unrepentant sinners, not judging others salvation


You asked: "Why would Peter say “baptism now saves you” as a clear conscience toward God, knowing we can look to our baptism and God’s promises. (1 Peter 3:21)?"
Well, Peter actually said "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God" 1 Peter 3:21(NIV). So, water is the symbol of salvation, not the medium through which we are saved. If we leave out even one word the whole meaning of a verse can change.

Symbolizes is not a word that is in the Greek and was added by the NIV. No where in the actual Greek texts does it say anything about a symbol. Here is a great 10 minute video on 1 Peter 3:21 that discusses the Greek and the NIV translation. I encourage you to check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjcrsZFVyKw

Gadgeteer
Jul 18th 2014, 05:32 PM
You can argue water doesn't mean water and the “saved” and “forgiveness of sins” in baptism verses don’t really refer to baptism but I think these arguments strengthen my points. We can let the verses speak for themselves:

Acts 22:16 - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’Acts22:16 refers to water; but it's not the water that washes away sins, it is the "calling on His name". You would agree that we don't have to KEEP getting waterbaptized --- if it was actually the water that washed away sins, we would!


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.This is water as well; and again it is not the WATER, but Christ's NAME!


Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.Whoever does not believe and is NOT DIPPED condemned? No! I agree this speaks of "waterbaptism", but it does NOT connect condemnation with dryness!!!

There is not one verse which teaches "dipped-or-condemned".


John 3:5 - Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.If we come to resolution on nothing else, then let us resolve this.


John3:3) "Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Verse five is the same as verse six; Jesus did NOT jump track and insert a WATERBAPTISM clause --- He uses "water" as FLESH. Hudor, water-as-the-physical-element; "born of water-physical, AND ALSO born of the Spirit".


PHYSICAL ___________________SPIRITUAL
3) .................................................. .unless one is born again
5) born-of-water...............................(and also) born of the Spirit
6) that-which-born-of-flesh................that-which-born-of-Spirit

Three verses asserting NEW SPIRITUAL birth, two verses asserting PHYSICAL birth (verse three PRESUMES physical birth). If verse 5 means "WATERBAPTISM", then waterbaptism is associated with SPIRITUAL BIRTH, making verse five then read:


"Unless one is SPIRITUALLY BORN and SPIRITUALLY BORN, he cannot enter..."

No way verse five has TWO "spiritual-birth-events". It has to be "water/flesh/physical"!

Is this resolved? John3:5 has nothing to do with water, and will never again be used in a waterbaptism discussion?


Titus 3:5 - 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,Washing OF REGENERATION; not "washing-of-WATER-to-be-regenerated".

The regeneration is the "washing" in Titus3:5-6!

Agree or disagree?


Ephesians 5:25-27- Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.In no way does this assert "undipped are condemned".


Ezekiel 36:25-27 - I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.And again the "new-heart" comes after turning to God and away from abominations, Ezk11:18; but those who WILL NOT turn, are condemned --- Ezk11:21.


Matthew 28:19-20 - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

This is also "water"; but does NOT assert "undipped are condemned"!

Show us the wet-or-burn verse, Ob?

Obfuscate
Jul 18th 2014, 05:57 PM
Show us the wet-or-burn verse, Ob?

You either don't read what other people say or you are flat out dishonest. I said here and said before virtually no one denies God can save outside of baptism, however, he does save and forgive sins by baptism as Scripture clearly states. You can make the same arguments over and over that water doesn't mean water and the verses on baptism are not really about baptism doing anything but it's not convincing.

paidforinfull
Jul 18th 2014, 06:18 PM
That verse is about the churches authority to excommunicate unrepentant sinners, not judging others salvation



Symbolizes is not a word that is in the Greek and was added by the NIV. No where in the actual Greek texts does it say anything about a symbol. Here is a great 10 minute video on 1 Peter 3:21 that discusses the Greek and the NIV translation. I encourage you to check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjcrsZFVyKw

Judging is judging. Should we not know a tree by it's fruit? I sometimes do - as I said, not always, but definitely sometimes.

I'll check out 1Peter 3 in the KJV, thanks :).

B.

OK - I've checked out various Bible versions, incl. the AMP, and the message is the same (the like figure; in like form; like; etc). The basic meaning of the verse means that baptism is more than a washing of the body; it means that we turn to God with a clear conscience. I'll still check out the youtube link, but my experience of youtube is that there is a lot of disinformation out there.

B.

RogerW
Jul 18th 2014, 06:22 PM
In the Old Covenant the sign given to identify who was included among the covenant people of God was circumcision. In the New Covenant the sign given to identify who is included among the covenant people of God is water baptism. The question becomes who receives the sign, and why? The why is easy, God commands it.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

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

The who becomes a bit more challenging. From the command from Christ we can see baptizing goes along with preaching the Gospel, and making disciples [teaching]. It seems pretty clear from this that when one hears the Gospel and through the hearing professes Christ, they should be baptized into the covenant body. In this they too are set apart from mankind in unbelief, or mankind of the world. They are included among those who are distinctly belonging to the universal church on earth. There are many blessings that God has given to His church on earth. These blessings are greatly linked to community. Yet there are and always will be tares among the covenant people on earth. They all have the same identity, because they have all received the outward sign of baptism, but not all of them have everlasting life in Christ. So clearly baptism serves no purpose in identifying who is and who is not eternally saved. Because salvation can be imitated. The tares look and sound exactly like the wheat.

So why bother with baptism? Is it really so important since it does not wash away our sins? The answer is yes! Because God has given gifts to His universal church on earth. Gifts, not only the Word of God that has the power of life, but also gifts of ministry, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and to those who are indwelt by the Spirit the gifts of the Spirit. All the baptized members of the body outwardly have some manner of participation in these gifts. Even those members outwardly [tares] who never become eternally saved, can and do receive benefits and blessings from being connected to the universal body of Christ outwardly. It is baptism by water, like circumcision from the Old that gives all the body this identity.

The most important reason for water baptism is that is symbolizes the True baptism that does save us. The sign, like all signs points us to the baptism of Christ. And since our Lord submitted to baptism, why would anyone wanting to be identified with Him not be baptized?

Of course I am also of the mind set that believes even very young children and infants too should be brought to the waters of baptism by faithful parents. In this the children too are brought into the covenant blessings God has bestowed upon His universal church in time. After baptizing them, we obey the Lord's command to preach the Gospel to them, and make them disciples of Christ. When training up our baptized children in the way they should go, time will tell if they too might one day declare their love for our Lord.

Gadgeteer
Jul 19th 2014, 05:21 AM
You either don't read what other people say or you are flat out dishonest.I'm sorry if I misunderstood --- do we agree on "waterbaptism not part of salvation"?


I said here and said before virtually no one denies God can save outside of baptism, however, he does save and forgive sins by baptism as Scripture clearly states.The question is "when does baptizo mean WATER, and when does it NOT?"


You can make the same arguments over and over that water doesn't mean water and the verses on baptism are not really about baptism doing anything but it's not convincing.

Does Romans6:3-4 refer to water?

Boo
Jul 19th 2014, 10:43 AM
Does this help ?

All saved persons have been made members of the Body of Christ by One divine baptism (this is baptism into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit). By that ONE BAPTISM, every member of the Body of Christ is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. In light of the statement concerning the "ONE BAPTISM" in Ephesians 4:5 and the statement in I Corinthians 1:17 that "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel", we affirm that water baptism has no place in God's spiritual program for the Body of Christ in this day of grace.

I see. So, Paul's mission statement cancels out the requirement by Jesus to baptize disciples.

It would have been clearer if Jesus would have rephrased his commissioning statement:


Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, and the Holy Spirit will baptize them, and then you teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

I wonder why Jesus didn't say that instead?

I guess, Jesus could have rephrased his commission to:


Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit until Paul tells you to stop, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

But, He didn't say that either.

No, I think I'll stick with what Jesus said.

Obfuscate
Jul 20th 2014, 08:45 PM
I'm sorry if I misunderstood --- do we agree on "waterbaptism not part of salvation"?

1 Peter 3:20-21 - because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


Does Romans6:3-4 refer to water?

"Romans 6 is quite remarkable, when you think about it. Within twenty-five years of the crucifixion, Paul had already worked out this astonishingly deep and detailed theology of what it means to go through the waters of baptism, linking it to the Exodus, to creation, to new creation, and in particular to Jesus’ own death and resurrection.

Therefore, says Paul, the spectacular Good Friday and Easter at the heart of the Christian story—Jesus’ dying and rising—happened to us in baptism. Paul doesn’t hold back here: he doesn’t hedge and say “as if.” He simply says, You died with Christ in baptism and you were raised with him through the waters into the new life of belonging to Jesus."

N.T. Wright

Romans 6:2-8 - How can we who died to sin still live in it? 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. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

WITDNM
Jul 21st 2014, 11:52 AM
I see. So, Paul's mission statement cancels out the requirement by Jesus to baptize disciples.

It would have been clearer if Jesus would have rephrased his commissioning statement:



I wonder why Jesus didn't say that instead?

I guess, Jesus could have rephrased his commission to:



But, He didn't say that either.

No, I think I'll stick with what Jesus said.

If we "preached Jesus" the way Phillip "preached Jesus", to the Eunuch, the only question to be asked is, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:35-36)

Boo
Jul 22nd 2014, 08:26 AM
If we "preached Jesus" the way Phillip "preached Jesus", to the Eunuch, the only question to be asked is, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:35-36)

Yep, unless we think Philip got it wrong. All Philip had was the book of Isaiah and the lessons learned from the Apostles. The Eunuch was a gentile, but Philip baptized him. Reckon he got it wrong?

Gadgeteer
Jul 22nd 2014, 06:29 PM
1 Peter 3:20-21 - because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus ChristHi again, OB.

It seems you and I agree that "repentance" (appeal-to-God-for-good-conscience) does not necessarily coincide with waterbaptism.


Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.Whoever is not waterdipped is condemned --- that's the issue, such a dictate is not in Scripture.


"Romans 6 is quite remarkable, when you think about it. Within twenty-five years of the crucifixion, Paul had already worked out this astonishingly deep and detailed theology of what it means to go through the waters of baptism, linking it to the Exodus, to creation, to new creation, and in particular to Jesus’ own death and resurrection."Waters" or "water" has nothing to do with Romans6; Luke12:50 undeniably has nothing to do with water, Mk10:38 also undeniably has nothing to do with water, and Rom6 is about the waterless baptism of Lk12:50 & Mk10:38.

Rom6:2-7 uses five words, "died/crucified/buried/immersed/UNITED" --- and none of them refer to water.
Therefore neither does Eph4:5.


Therefore, says Paul, the spectacular Good Friday and Easter at the heart of the Christian story—Jesus’ dying and rising—happened to us in baptism.Actually, we are "Baptized with Jesus' baptism-of-DEATH" which was on the Cross, no water until it started raining later.


Paul doesn’t hold back here: he doesn’t hedge and say “as if.” He simply says, You died with Christ in baptism and you were raised with him through the waters into the new life of belonging to Jesus."No, "baptized-into-death", not "baptized-in-WATER-to-be-united-in-death" --- it is death itself into which we are immersed, not immersed-in-water-to-be-in-death.

DIED --- that is where we are joined with Christ's death, the old self dies.
CRUCIFIED --- same thing, joined with Christ's death and His resurrection
BURIED --- we are entered into Christ's TOMB, not buried in water
UNITED --- joined to Christ's death, and "likewise we walk in newness of life" (resurrection)

So suddenly "baptizo-immersed" hasta mean [u]water[u]? It does not; died crucified buried immersed UNITED.

Joined. None are wet. Luke12:50 and Mark10:38, or else we make it water and mark OUT verses like Luke12:50 and Mark10:38. Marking out verses is not viable; all Scripture is inspired by God, especially recordings of what Jesus said.



Romans 6:2-8 - How can we who died to sin still live in it? 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. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

You and I agree this can happen apart from waterbaptism; where then is our disagreement?