Raf, What church do you belong to if I may ask? Where you ever baptized as an infant? Saw a beautiful baptism at church (Methodist) this morning that made me cry.
I'm glad you live in Florida and hope the water wasn't too cold!
Never been 'water baptised' but definitely baptised with the holy spirit. I don't 'feel' I need to go back to the water. If it makes a person 'feel' clean, should it be a regular thing ?
Allan, am I to suppose that you believe that water baptism "went out with Pentecost" or some such? If you can clarify, we can have a basis for discussion, which I greatly prefer to simply taking potshots.
Allan, I'm not sure how to respond to your post. Forgive me, but your answers seem "flip" and lacking in substance.
If I have time, I'll post a few thoughts with scriptural proofs that validates the practice for today. (It'll take time as it's not a strong subject for me.) Then, if you have a counterargument with some substance perhaps you'll want to respond.
This came up last Sunday as I shared from I Corinthians.
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Now if Paul meant just speaking the Gospel and they all got born again, then I believe he would have said that, but he says he baptized these two guys. So did baptism mean something else to Paul? I'm not saying he went about and dunked or sprinkled, but he says he baptized these two individuals.
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
Obviously he baptized them in the name of Christ Jesus, but just what did this baptism entail?
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
He also remembers baptizing everybody at Steve's house. But as to baptizing of anybody else, he doesn't remember. Now this is Paul speaking, the messenger of the Gospel of Grace.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Now if he wasn't the baptizer, who was, and what did he mean by this?
When you think you've got it all down, wham, here we go again. LOL
Well, I am still figuring stuff out. Paul only remembers baptizing Steve's house, Crispus and Gaius--but for some reason he baptized them! It cannot be refering to people believing on his words since obviously more people believed on Jesus Christ from Paul's teachings than just the ones mentioned. IMHO it must be that other leaders/believers helped to baptize new believers and Paul mostly focused on teaching the Word.
And I think its quite a twist/rationalization from twi/vpw/lcm whoever to say well, it doesn't say they baptized with water. (Check out Acts 8 with Philip where water is mentioned FOUR times btw) Also if it was baptism by/with holy spirit as twi tried to teach...that would have to be God's department not mans if someone was to be baptized that way (ie between God and the new believer)
IMHO it must be that other leaders/believers helped to baptize new believers and Paul mostly focused on teaching the Word.
Helped baptize how? To bring them to a decision? Hummm.....Paul also says that he did not baptize in his name, but the Lord Jesus Christ's, which I know we understand.
Paul's ministry was to preach the Gospel, not in teaching, unless this is synonymous, and if he was speaking to a croud, how could there not be someone there who believed his words and not get saved? I'm missing something here.
And I think its quite a twist/rationalization from twi/vpw/lcm whoever to say well, it doesn't say they baptized with water. (Check out Acts 8 with Philip where water is mentioned FOUR times btw) Also if it was baptism by/with holy spirit as twi tried to teach...that would have to be God's department not mans if someone was to be baptized that way (ie between God and the new believer)
Yes, but read on about Peter and his encounter with Cornelius.
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. Acts 11:16
The BUT is huge here. This pretty much means no water, so I don't see the rationalization to believe the whoever. TWI in this discussion is pretty moot. Don't need their validation one way or another, just trying to understand what Paul ment by baptizing, that's all.
The fact that Peter didn't remember Jesus words until he got to the household of Cornelius actually undermines VP's dogmatic assertion that there was no water baptism in the First Century Church. Lots and lots of people were baptized in water. That doesn't mean that God wanted that done, but it was done nevertheless.
Imo, VP knew this, but figured that it would be easier to argue (falsely) that there wasn't any water baptism after Pentecost than to convince people that the Apostles didn't know what they were supposed to be doing.
If you tell a hard core Baptist that Jesus didn't want anyone baptized in water, but the Apostles didn't understand that until years later, he or she is simply going to say, "Oh so YOU know more about what Jesus taught than Peter John, and James eh? Sure you do." End of argument. So, as his manner was, VP just brushed the inconvenient Scriptural details aside and stuck to the assertion that it didn't happen.
According to Acts 1:5, Jesus did say John truly baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized in holy spirit not many days hence. And, according to Matthew 28:19, he told them to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or if you're a Unitarian, "in my name"). It is very likely that Jesus' intention was to have people baptized in his name instead of in water. The Aposltles either never understood that or forgot it, as Peter indicated after the Cornelius incident, and went around dousing and sprinkling people "in the name of the Lord".
There is reason to believe, that Saul of Tarsus was baptized by Ananias because it was the accepted practice at the time.
Consider the twin records from Acts; Luke's account of the event, and Luke's accont of Paul's eyewitness account told to the Jews at Jerusalem.
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
I've put the "and"s in bold type to illustrate the use of the figure of speech polysyndeton (many and's). According to Bullinger and TWI, the purpose of this figure is to draw attention to each item in the list. So we shouldn't see the phrase "and was baptized" as the result of all that came before it, or as a summary of Paul's conversion, but rather as a separate act that occurred after Ananias entered, laid hands on Saul, Saul's sight was restored, and he arose. And, if VP was correct about the import of Ananias greeting "Brother Saul", Paul was already born again when Ananias came on the scene. So the phrase " and was baptized" doesn't refer to that, but to a separate act. That separate act is presented in more detail in Paul's account of the story. from Acts 22:12-16.
12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
There you have it. Ananias baptized Paul in water, 'in the name of the Lord'. Again, this is not to say that that's what the Lord intended, but, according to the book of Acts, that's what was done. And despite the fact that Peter apparently "got it" before he doused Cornelius, there's no evidence that his revelation caught on and that the Church's practice changed because of Peter's declaration.
As to what Paul referred to when he says that the Lord sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel, I would guess from the above that Paul took up where Peter left off and made a practice of not dousing, sprinkling, or dunking his converts. Paul wrote of baptism as a unifying reality in which a believer is identified with or credited with an aspect of the work of Christ. (Romans 6:3, I Cor 10:2, 12:13, Galatians 3:27 etc) He understood that what was received spiritually was completely sufficient and that there was no need for the physical ceremony.
As to what Paul referred to when he says that the Lord sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel, I would guess from the above that Paul took up where Peter left off and made a practice of not dousing, sprinkling, or dunking his converts. Paul wrote of baptism as a unifying reality in which a believer is identified with or credited with an aspect of the work of Christ. (Romans 6:3, I Cor 10:2, 12:13, Galatians 3:27 etc) He understood that what was received spiritually was completely sufficient and that there was no need for the physical ceremony.
Thanks JerryB,
something truely to meditate on.
Ah, and that darn transition over time of said truths that aluded me.
Yes, and to say water baptism's didn't take place is eronious.
I, too, believe it was the practice, if not the doctrinal need, of the first century church to baptize in water. The only problem I have with the practice is when it is viewed as necessary for salvation. It is no more necessary for salvation than speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation, IMO. But if you haven't been through baptism as an adult, I highly recommend it. It's as wonderful as session 12 ever was.
I haven't posted on this site in quite a while, but I would like to make a few observations, as this is a subject I have been studying for a while now.
First of all, the most common argument against water baptism being necessary is the reference to "John baptizes with water, but you shall be baptized with holy spirit." The verses that say this were thought by VPW and TWI to be setting spirit against water, and making them mutually exclusive. (Many TWI offshoots still hold to this understanding.) But this is not the point of those verses. The point is to contrast the ministry of John with the ministry of Jesus. Jesus would baptize with the holy spirit, which would make an inner change in the believer, in contrast to John's baptism which was only outward. But it is not saying that one would make the other obsolete.
When the word “but” is used to set two things in contrast, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are mutually exclusive. It is similar to I Cor. 8:1 where Paul writes, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.” This verse doesn’t mean you should have love without knowledge. It is simply contrasting the aspects of each. In fact, in this case, it is implying that knowledge without love is insufficient, and that love must be added to knowledge. Similarly, John’s baptism involved water, while Jesus’ baptism would also involve spirit. But it doesn’t automatically follow that spirit and water are mutually exclusive.
Theologians have recognized this for years. Reading through the records in Acts, one sees that the typical Christian baptism involved both water and spirit. The disciples baptized with water in Jesus’ name, and Jesus baptized in holy spirit, usually at the same time. In fact on the occasions where one was present without the other, it was considered unusual, and the apostles got involved to rectify the situation. Certainly John’s baptism in water alone could not produce a change on the inside, as the holy spirit could do. But there was also a purpose for the outward sign of water. Rather than spirit replacing water, it was added to it, making Christian baptism complete.
When Peter said that he remembered the words of Jesus, that John baptized in water but they would be baptized in holy spirit, we were taught that Peter had made a mistake by ordering water baptism, but then came to his senses. But the fact is, believers in Acts were usually baptized in water and received holy spirit. Peter would never have believed that Gentiles would receive and become part of the Body of Christ, unless he had seen specific indication of their acceptance from God. When he saw that they received holy spirit, he said, "Can any man forbid water...?" In the Greek, it is literally "the water," that is, the well-known water, which was a regular part of Christian baptism. When he said "What was I that I could withstand God" we were taught that it meant that withstanding God would have been to continue baptizing in water instead of holy spirit. But this is not what the whole passage is talking about. Read Acts chapters 10 and 11 in context, and you see that the whole point was God showing them that Gentiles could also be part of the Church too. To withstand God would have been to deny the Gentiles the right to be baptized into the Church.
There is a lot more to this subject, but the main point of baptism that TWI and many of its offshoots miss, is that it is our entrance into the New Covenant relationship, which includes our sharing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is his shed blood that gives us forgiveness of sins, and we share in that through baptism.
Romans 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Colossians 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.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
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;
The objection many have about water baptism is that it is an "outward sign" and we are supposed to be saved by faith and not by works. But as James writes, faith without works is dead.
James 2:
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Does this contradict what Paul writes about salvation by faith? Certainly not. But there is a difference between works that are done to try to earn salvation, and works that are done as a demonstration of your faith. Remember the old saying in TWI, "Believing is action?" You can say you believe all you want, but until you put it into action, it is not really believing. To ratify the New Covenant, Jesus shed his blood; we have to take some kind of action to enter into that covenant and partake of the sin-cleansing power of his blood.
Another important point, John the Baptist did not preach the same dipping practices that proselytes were doing. That was a man made practice that was not commanded of God. Nor was he preaching any washing rituals from the OT Law. They involved washing parts of one's body, or utensils, rather than complete immersion, and it was to be done on a regular basis. John's baptism, on the other hand, was total immersion, and done only once as a sign of repentance. He preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). But it was not complete, since Jesus had not yet shed his blood for that purpose. Once it was complete, the disciples were instructed to preach repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ. Peter did so on the day of Pentecost.
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.
Notice it doesn't say "repent and be baptized in the holy ghost." If you read the records in Acts carefully, without preconceived ideas, you see that to be baptized in the name of Jesus is not the same as baptized in the holy ghost. It is actually to be baptized in water, but in the name of Jesus Christ, rather than in the name of John the Baptist.
Water baptism was an outward sign, which demonstrated one's faith in the gospel and one's decision to repent and turn one's heart to God. Is an outward sign just an "optional extra" as we have been told? Consider the words of our Lord.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
I'd say it's pretty clear that we need to demonstrate our faith and repentance, to enter into the covenant and partake of what Jesus made available.
Well put, Mark. I think people get hung up on the word "need," though. Why is water baptism a "need"?
I think water baptism is a need in the same sense that "witnessing" is a need, in the same sense that doing good works is a need, and in the same sense that loving your neighbor is a need. It's not what saves you, but it is what's expected of you.
The problem with the argument that we are supposed to bapitze in water and spirit is Paul's stipulation in Ephesians 4:5 that there is one baptism, not two or three. The one baptism of which Paul wrote is the identification with Christ you cited from Romans chapter 6. Being buried with him in baptism into his death has nothing to do with water. It is all about having the work of Christ credited to us by our identification with him.
But again, as Raf said, if you want to get dipped, dunked, or splashed, there's no harm done. But if you start teaching that water and spirit are necessary, thus making water baptism necessary for salvation, you're off the map Amigo.
When one makes a public profession through baptism, those already in the community of the saints held this person accountable to his public confession. Such was the case then, and still is today in africa.
This lack in our culture is symptomatic of our piritual malaise. And nobody seems to be amenable to being held accountable...
The problem with the argument that we are supposed to bapitze in water and spirit is Paul's stipulation in Ephesians 4:5 that there is one baptism, not two or three.
Unfortunately, we were taught how to read into the Scriptures what VPW and others said, instead of reading in context, and letting it speak for itself. The following is the context of 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.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Notice that it is talking about unity in the Body, not about different types of baptism. We are to endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, because there is one body, one spirit, etc. We should try to maintain unity because we all have the same spirit, the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism, the same God. That there were two forms of baptism, or a question of which form was correct was not an issue.
In another post you said,
Lots and lots of people were baptized in water. That doesn't mean that God wanted that done, but it was done nevertheless.
But on what are we to base the conclusion that God didn't want it done? In order to make this idea fit, VPW and all his followers had to assume that the apostles messed up and got it wrong. This doesn't say much for Jesus' ability to teach, does it? Not only that, but it is reading something into the records that is nowhere explicitly stated. If the word "baptism" when used without any other qualifying words, meant water in one place, and spirit in another, there would be major confusion, unless a change in meaning was specifically stated. Paul does, in fact, specifically state many changes in meaning from Old Testament practices, but baptism is not one of them. There is nothing in the New Testament that specifically says that water was replaced by spirit.
Jesus himself even authorized his disciples to baptize in water, early in his ministry (John 3:22,26; 4:1,2). When he comissioned his disciples after his resurrection, he instructed them to baptize (Mathew 28:19, Mark 16:16) and they followed his commandments, as we read throughout Acts. There is nothing in any of the records on which to base the conclusion that spirit was supposed to replace water. We just were told that, and learned to read Acts with that viewpoint.
To be baptized in the name of Jesus was a baptism that the disciples performed, using water as the symbol of the person's repentance and sharing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was usually accompanied with the baptism in holy spirit, which Jesus himself does, not any man. John said that Jesus would baptize with holy spirit, in contrast to what he or any man could do. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that spirit would replace water. Rather, it was added to water.
There are two aspects of it, but it is still one baptism. Water baptism from John onward was a symbol of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. But it was incomplete until Jesus shed his blood, which is why John said that his baptism pointed to the one who was to come after, namely Jesus. (Paul said the same thing in Acts 19). When the spiritual aspect was added, the rite became complete, and it was what Peter and the others declared must be done for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). They baptized with water, now in the name of Jesus Christ instead of by John's baptism, and when they did so, Jesus baptized them with spirit. Both aspects are necessary, and both were the norm in the Church. When they were baptized in the name of Jesus but didn't receive the holy spirit in Acts 8, this was unusual. Likewise when the Gentiles received the holy spirit without being baptized in water, in Acts 10, which the context shows was necessary to prove to Peter and the others that the Gentiles should be allowed to partake of the rite and be members of the Church.
As for making it necessary for salvation, is forgiveness of sins necessary for salvation? We are told that we must repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins. It is not salvation by works if we are demonstrating our faith and repentance with this act which the Lord prescribed. It is simply a matter of obedience. If we call him Lord, why would we not do what he has commanded us to do?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
14
18
21
Popular Days
Nov 16
19
Nov 17
16
Nov 20
15
Nov 25
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 35 posts
Allan 14 posts
Mark Clarke 18 posts
markomalley 21 posts
Popular Days
Nov 16 2005
19 posts
Nov 17 2005
16 posts
Nov 20 2005
15 posts
Nov 25 2005
11 posts
Cynic
Raf,
Did these folks baptize using the Matthew 28:19 formula?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Raf, What church do you belong to if I may ask? Where you ever baptized as an infant? Saw a beautiful baptism at church (Methodist) this morning that made me cry.
I'm glad you live in Florida and hope the water wasn't too cold!
I'm happy if you're happy!
IE
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Cynic,
Yes, they did.
Irisheyes, the water was quite warm. And no, I was never baptized as an infant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Baptism of fire ?..try posting on GSC !!
Never been 'water baptised' but definitely baptised with the holy spirit. I don't 'feel' I need to go back to the water. If it makes a person 'feel' clean, should it be a regular thing ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Allan, am I to suppose that you believe that water baptism "went out with Pentecost" or some such? If you can clarify, we can have a basis for discussion, which I greatly prefer to simply taking potshots.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Jesus Christ , who was obiedient in all things, ws baptized with water by immersion, Can we his followers be any less obiedient.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
OOOOHHHH Templelady, sometimes I feel disdain for you and other times you make my heart melt !!!
I just got a picture of one of my daughters in my mind, thinking of you !!
As I said before Bless you for standing on something (godly)
Mormon church does not believe in s.i.t. so they are at a disadvantage right there in 'rightly dividing' the truth of baptism.
Evan..I believe that 'right doctrine' always lines up with 'right practise'.
For example I was never 'water baptised' yet I did confess Jesus as Lord and 'experienced s.i.t.'
I believe that with the coming of the greater the lesser disappears.
I believe that truth is simple, that Jesus came to uncomplicate things.
I believe that I only have to look at a family to see the truth behind a Father and His son.
I believe that when I look at a dead person, I can see they're dead.
I believe that no one church is 'the true church' (sorry MO) but that every born-again Christian is part of the body of Christ.
I believe that Jesus said "why say to me Lord, Lord and DO NOT the things I say"
etc..etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I'm told I have that effect on a lot of people :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Allan,
Don't be arrogant about getting SIT "rightly divided" there's enough information out there to suggest that TWI was dead wrong about it.
Also, there's nothing wrong with water baptism, it's a great sign of a commitment to a new life.
Raf,
I am so happy for you.
Templelady
Even though I disagree with you, I never look at with disdain. With dese eyes maybe, but not dis dain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Allan, I'm not sure how to respond to your post. Forgive me, but your answers seem "flip" and lacking in substance.
If I have time, I'll post a few thoughts with scriptural proofs that validates the practice for today. (It'll take time as it's not a strong subject for me.) Then, if you have a counterargument with some substance perhaps you'll want to respond.
Later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I didn't say there was anything 'wrong' with water baptism, just that I believe that it is no longer necessary, the greater baptism has arrived
Ephesians chapter 4 says 'one baptism'..so which one do you want ??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
John the Baptist and the priests practiced what is called mitkvah, which is purification rite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
This came up last Sunday as I shared from I Corinthians.
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Now if Paul meant just speaking the Gospel and they all got born again, then I believe he would have said that, but he says he baptized these two guys. So did baptism mean something else to Paul? I'm not saying he went about and dunked or sprinkled, but he says he baptized these two individuals.
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
Obviously he baptized them in the name of Christ Jesus, but just what did this baptism entail?
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
He also remembers baptizing everybody at Steve's house. But as to baptizing of anybody else, he doesn't remember. Now this is Paul speaking, the messenger of the Gospel of Grace.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Now if he wasn't the baptizer, who was, and what did he mean by this?
When you think you've got it all down, wham, here we go again. LOL
Hey, and it's been long time no be here.
What do you guys see here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
Well, I am still figuring stuff out. Paul only remembers baptizing Steve's house, Crispus and Gaius--but for some reason he baptized them! It cannot be refering to people believing on his words since obviously more people believed on Jesus Christ from Paul's teachings than just the ones mentioned. IMHO it must be that other leaders/believers helped to baptize new believers and Paul mostly focused on teaching the Word.
And I think its quite a twist/rationalization from twi/vpw/lcm whoever to say well, it doesn't say they baptized with water. (Check out Acts 8 with Philip where water is mentioned FOUR times btw) Also if it was baptism by/with holy spirit as twi tried to teach...that would have to be God's department not mans if someone was to be baptized that way (ie between God and the new believer)
Edited by penguinLink to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
penquin
Helped baptize how? To bring them to a decision? Hummm.....Paul also says that he did not baptize in his name, but the Lord Jesus Christ's, which I know we understand.Paul's ministry was to preach the Gospel, not in teaching, unless this is synonymous, and if he was speaking to a croud, how could there not be someone there who believed his words and not get saved? I'm missing something here.
Yes, but read on about Peter and his encounter with Cornelius.
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. Acts 11:16
The BUT is huge here. This pretty much means no water, so I don't see the rationalization to believe the whoever. TWI in this discussion is pretty moot. Don't need their validation one way or another, just trying to understand what Paul ment by baptizing, that's all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
The fact that Peter didn't remember Jesus words until he got to the household of Cornelius actually undermines VP's dogmatic assertion that there was no water baptism in the First Century Church. Lots and lots of people were baptized in water. That doesn't mean that God wanted that done, but it was done nevertheless.
Imo, VP knew this, but figured that it would be easier to argue (falsely) that there wasn't any water baptism after Pentecost than to convince people that the Apostles didn't know what they were supposed to be doing.
If you tell a hard core Baptist that Jesus didn't want anyone baptized in water, but the Apostles didn't understand that until years later, he or she is simply going to say, "Oh so YOU know more about what Jesus taught than Peter John, and James eh? Sure you do." End of argument. So, as his manner was, VP just brushed the inconvenient Scriptural details aside and stuck to the assertion that it didn't happen.
According to Acts 1:5, Jesus did say John truly baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized in holy spirit not many days hence. And, according to Matthew 28:19, he told them to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or if you're a Unitarian, "in my name"). It is very likely that Jesus' intention was to have people baptized in his name instead of in water. The Aposltles either never understood that or forgot it, as Peter indicated after the Cornelius incident, and went around dousing and sprinkling people "in the name of the Lord".
There is reason to believe, that Saul of Tarsus was baptized by Ananias because it was the accepted practice at the time.
Consider the twin records from Acts; Luke's account of the event, and Luke's accont of Paul's eyewitness account told to the Jews at Jerusalem.
I've put the "and"s in bold type to illustrate the use of the figure of speech polysyndeton (many and's). According to Bullinger and TWI, the purpose of this figure is to draw attention to each item in the list. So we shouldn't see the phrase "and was baptized" as the result of all that came before it, or as a summary of Paul's conversion, but rather as a separate act that occurred after Ananias entered, laid hands on Saul, Saul's sight was restored, and he arose. And, if VP was correct about the import of Ananias greeting "Brother Saul", Paul was already born again when Ananias came on the scene. So the phrase " and was baptized" doesn't refer to that, but to a separate act. That separate act is presented in more detail in Paul's account of the story. from Acts 22:12-16.
There you have it. Ananias baptized Paul in water, 'in the name of the Lord'. Again, this is not to say that that's what the Lord intended, but, according to the book of Acts, that's what was done. And despite the fact that Peter apparently "got it" before he doused Cornelius, there's no evidence that his revelation caught on and that the Church's practice changed because of Peter's declaration.
As to what Paul referred to when he says that the Lord sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel, I would guess from the above that Paul took up where Peter left off and made a practice of not dousing, sprinkling, or dunking his converts. Paul wrote of baptism as a unifying reality in which a believer is identified with or credited with an aspect of the work of Christ. (Romans 6:3, I Cor 10:2, 12:13, Galatians 3:27 etc) He understood that what was received spiritually was completely sufficient and that there was no need for the physical ceremony.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
Thanks JerryB,
something truely to meditate on.
Ah, and that darn transition over time of said truths that aluded me.
Yes, and to say water baptism's didn't take place is eronious.
Let the Peace of God Umpire,
CWF
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I, too, believe it was the practice, if not the doctrinal need, of the first century church to baptize in water. The only problem I have with the practice is when it is viewed as necessary for salvation. It is no more necessary for salvation than speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation, IMO. But if you haven't been through baptism as an adult, I highly recommend it. It's as wonderful as session 12 ever was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I haven't posted on this site in quite a while, but I would like to make a few observations, as this is a subject I have been studying for a while now.
First of all, the most common argument against water baptism being necessary is the reference to "John baptizes with water, but you shall be baptized with holy spirit." The verses that say this were thought by VPW and TWI to be setting spirit against water, and making them mutually exclusive. (Many TWI offshoots still hold to this understanding.) But this is not the point of those verses. The point is to contrast the ministry of John with the ministry of Jesus. Jesus would baptize with the holy spirit, which would make an inner change in the believer, in contrast to John's baptism which was only outward. But it is not saying that one would make the other obsolete.
When the word “but” is used to set two things in contrast, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are mutually exclusive. It is similar to I Cor. 8:1 where Paul writes, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.” This verse doesn’t mean you should have love without knowledge. It is simply contrasting the aspects of each. In fact, in this case, it is implying that knowledge without love is insufficient, and that love must be added to knowledge. Similarly, John’s baptism involved water, while Jesus’ baptism would also involve spirit. But it doesn’t automatically follow that spirit and water are mutually exclusive.
Theologians have recognized this for years. Reading through the records in Acts, one sees that the typical Christian baptism involved both water and spirit. The disciples baptized with water in Jesus’ name, and Jesus baptized in holy spirit, usually at the same time. In fact on the occasions where one was present without the other, it was considered unusual, and the apostles got involved to rectify the situation. Certainly John’s baptism in water alone could not produce a change on the inside, as the holy spirit could do. But there was also a purpose for the outward sign of water. Rather than spirit replacing water, it was added to it, making Christian baptism complete.
When Peter said that he remembered the words of Jesus, that John baptized in water but they would be baptized in holy spirit, we were taught that Peter had made a mistake by ordering water baptism, but then came to his senses. But the fact is, believers in Acts were usually baptized in water and received holy spirit. Peter would never have believed that Gentiles would receive and become part of the Body of Christ, unless he had seen specific indication of their acceptance from God. When he saw that they received holy spirit, he said, "Can any man forbid water...?" In the Greek, it is literally "the water," that is, the well-known water, which was a regular part of Christian baptism. When he said "What was I that I could withstand God" we were taught that it meant that withstanding God would have been to continue baptizing in water instead of holy spirit. But this is not what the whole passage is talking about. Read Acts chapters 10 and 11 in context, and you see that the whole point was God showing them that Gentiles could also be part of the Church too. To withstand God would have been to deny the Gentiles the right to be baptized into the Church.
There is a lot more to this subject, but the main point of baptism that TWI and many of its offshoots miss, is that it is our entrance into the New Covenant relationship, which includes our sharing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is his shed blood that gives us forgiveness of sins, and we share in that through baptism.
The objection many have about water baptism is that it is an "outward sign" and we are supposed to be saved by faith and not by works. But as James writes, faith without works is dead.
Does this contradict what Paul writes about salvation by faith? Certainly not. But there is a difference between works that are done to try to earn salvation, and works that are done as a demonstration of your faith. Remember the old saying in TWI, "Believing is action?" You can say you believe all you want, but until you put it into action, it is not really believing. To ratify the New Covenant, Jesus shed his blood; we have to take some kind of action to enter into that covenant and partake of the sin-cleansing power of his blood.
Another important point, John the Baptist did not preach the same dipping practices that proselytes were doing. That was a man made practice that was not commanded of God. Nor was he preaching any washing rituals from the OT Law. They involved washing parts of one's body, or utensils, rather than complete immersion, and it was to be done on a regular basis. John's baptism, on the other hand, was total immersion, and done only once as a sign of repentance. He preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). But it was not complete, since Jesus had not yet shed his blood for that purpose. Once it was complete, the disciples were instructed to preach repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ. Peter did so on the day of Pentecost.
Notice it doesn't say "repent and be baptized in the holy ghost." If you read the records in Acts carefully, without preconceived ideas, you see that to be baptized in the name of Jesus is not the same as baptized in the holy ghost. It is actually to be baptized in water, but in the name of Jesus Christ, rather than in the name of John the Baptist.
Water baptism was an outward sign, which demonstrated one's faith in the gospel and one's decision to repent and turn one's heart to God. Is an outward sign just an "optional extra" as we have been told? Consider the words of our Lord.
I'd say it's pretty clear that we need to demonstrate our faith and repentance, to enter into the covenant and partake of what Jesus made available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well put, Mark. I think people get hung up on the word "need," though. Why is water baptism a "need"?
I think water baptism is a need in the same sense that "witnessing" is a need, in the same sense that doing good works is a need, and in the same sense that loving your neighbor is a need. It's not what saves you, but it is what's expected of you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Mark. Good to hear from you.
The problem with the argument that we are supposed to bapitze in water and spirit is Paul's stipulation in Ephesians 4:5 that there is one baptism, not two or three. The one baptism of which Paul wrote is the identification with Christ you cited from Romans chapter 6. Being buried with him in baptism into his death has nothing to do with water. It is all about having the work of Christ credited to us by our identification with him.
But again, as Raf said, if you want to get dipped, dunked, or splashed, there's no harm done. But if you start teaching that water and spirit are necessary, thus making water baptism necessary for salvation, you're off the map Amigo.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Excellent post, Mark.
When one makes a public profession through baptism, those already in the community of the saints held this person accountable to his public confession. Such was the case then, and still is today in africa.
This lack in our culture is symptomatic of our piritual malaise. And nobody seems to be amenable to being held accountable...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
JerryB,
You wrote,
Unfortunately, we were taught how to read into the Scriptures what VPW and others said, instead of reading in context, and letting it speak for itself. The following is the context of Ephesians 4:
Notice that it is talking about unity in the Body, not about different types of baptism. We are to endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, because there is one body, one spirit, etc. We should try to maintain unity because we all have the same spirit, the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism, the same God. That there were two forms of baptism, or a question of which form was correct was not an issue.
In another post you said,
But on what are we to base the conclusion that God didn't want it done? In order to make this idea fit, VPW and all his followers had to assume that the apostles messed up and got it wrong. This doesn't say much for Jesus' ability to teach, does it? Not only that, but it is reading something into the records that is nowhere explicitly stated. If the word "baptism" when used without any other qualifying words, meant water in one place, and spirit in another, there would be major confusion, unless a change in meaning was specifically stated. Paul does, in fact, specifically state many changes in meaning from Old Testament practices, but baptism is not one of them. There is nothing in the New Testament that specifically says that water was replaced by spirit.
Jesus himself even authorized his disciples to baptize in water, early in his ministry (John 3:22,26; 4:1,2). When he comissioned his disciples after his resurrection, he instructed them to baptize (Mathew 28:19, Mark 16:16) and they followed his commandments, as we read throughout Acts. There is nothing in any of the records on which to base the conclusion that spirit was supposed to replace water. We just were told that, and learned to read Acts with that viewpoint.
To be baptized in the name of Jesus was a baptism that the disciples performed, using water as the symbol of the person's repentance and sharing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was usually accompanied with the baptism in holy spirit, which Jesus himself does, not any man. John said that Jesus would baptize with holy spirit, in contrast to what he or any man could do. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that spirit would replace water. Rather, it was added to water.
There are two aspects of it, but it is still one baptism. Water baptism from John onward was a symbol of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. But it was incomplete until Jesus shed his blood, which is why John said that his baptism pointed to the one who was to come after, namely Jesus. (Paul said the same thing in Acts 19). When the spiritual aspect was added, the rite became complete, and it was what Peter and the others declared must be done for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). They baptized with water, now in the name of Jesus Christ instead of by John's baptism, and when they did so, Jesus baptized them with spirit. Both aspects are necessary, and both were the norm in the Church. When they were baptized in the name of Jesus but didn't receive the holy spirit in Acts 8, this was unusual. Likewise when the Gentiles received the holy spirit without being baptized in water, in Acts 10, which the context shows was necessary to prove to Peter and the others that the Gentiles should be allowed to partake of the rite and be members of the Church.
As for making it necessary for salvation, is forgiveness of sins necessary for salvation? We are told that we must repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins. It is not salvation by works if we are demonstrating our faith and repentance with this act which the Lord prescribed. It is simply a matter of obedience. If we call him Lord, why would we not do what he has commanded us to do?
Mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.