Baptism: is it required to be baptized in water?

[hornetguy]

The concept of baptizing with the Holy spirit was known during John's time because John witnessed to them;

Mark 1:7And he began to proclaim: “After me will come One more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8Ibaptizeyouwith water,butHewill baptizeyouwiththe HolySpirit.”

John 1:29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”32Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.33And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”

Acts 2:38Peter replied, “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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

These people listened to the gospel and accepted it, they had a change of heart and were repentant- the result was that they received the Holy spirit and this is what we call baptism- from this passage, it is not right to insist that water was used.
It might be true that water baptism was common then but it was of no significance because even the disciples themselves and the apostles were not water baptized at any given moment yet they received the Holy spirit.

Yes, that is correct, that John started teaching the concept of a spiritual baptism, but that was a new, radical, not-widely-known concept. Most of the Jews at Pentecost would very likely not have heard John's teaching about Jesus' coming, as I believe John's preaching was done in a fairly localized area... and John had very likely been preaching for only a year or so. At Pentecost, there were Jews from a huge geographical area, who would have never even heard of John, much less heard his teachings.

Also, if Jesus had been telling the disciples to go and spiritually baptize people, why would you spiritually baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son, and SPIRIT? I'm going to spiritually baptize you in the name of the Spirit?

 

[Noose]

Yes, that is correct, that John started teaching the concept of a spiritual baptism, but that was a new, radical, not-widely-known concept. Most of the Jews at Pentecost would very likely not have heard John's teaching about Jesus' coming, as I believe John's preaching was done in a fairly localized area... and John had very likely been preaching for only a year or so. At Pentecost, there were Jews from a huge geographical area, who would have never even heard of John, much less heard his teachings.

Also, if Jesus had been telling the disciples to go and spiritually baptize people, why would you spiritually baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son, and SPIRIT? I'm going to spiritually baptize you in the name of the Spirit?

First of all, name here means authority and not identification names- so they were to baptize in the authority of the Father/Son/Holy spirit which basically means salvation through hearing the gospel and believing it.

Secondly, the apostles and disciples were not water baptized, so i don't think any of them would impose water baptism as a requirement to anyone even if it was common for symbolic purposes.

Baptism is the work of God/Jesus just as John told us "after me comes one who will baptize with the Holy spirit..". So, the apostles were doing the work given to them by Jesus/God.

 

[preston39]

That is not how composition works.

If baptism's sole purpose was the one time event between Jesus and John the Baptist it would have been written in the definitive not inferred. You are using the same logic as believers in faith alone regeneration theology. They infer that verses that do not mention repentance or baptism mean that it is "faith alone" that saves and will build a theology around that assumption. They will not use this logic on other subjects since it would cause chaos in everyday life.

D....,

Excellent point.

I might add.....prior to the 60's their position was not recorded in writings. So,we must conclude it evolved from that era along with OSAS, baptism not required, works not needed.... only faith, and other new age religion re-interpretations to full fill the end time prophecy of..."tickle my ears and tell me what I want to hear"..., etc.

The fact of that new age teaching is that each violate SPECIFIC BIBLE guidance.

 

[hornetguy]

First of all, name here means authority and not identification names- so they were to baptize in the authority of the Father/Son/Holy spirit which basically means salvation through hearing the gospel and believing it.

Secondly, the apostles and disciples were not water baptized, so i don't think any of them would impose water baptism as a requirement to anyone even if it was common for symbolic purposes.

Baptism is the work of God/Jesus just as John told us "after me comes one who will baptize with the Holy spirit..". So, the apostles were doing the work given to them by Jesus/God.

Now you are simply making things up to fit your premise. How do you know the apostles were not baptized? Jesus told them to go and baptize others... and during Jesus' ministry, his disciples were baptizing. The very FIRST thing the apostle Paul did after having his sight restored was to rise and go be baptized... and that was before even taking nourishment, after going without for three days. Doesn't that seem important to you?

Paul, when finding out that some disciples had not received the Spirit, asked them "into what, then, were you baptized?" He ASSUMED they had been baptized when they became believers.. he found out they had only been baptized with John's baptism. Paul then had them baptized into the name of Jesus, then laid hands on them, and they received the Spirit.

Where, in any of those instances do you see the apostles not thinking baptism was necessary?

 

[Didymous]

D....,

Excellent point.

I might add.....prior to the 60's their position was not recorded in writings. So,we must conclude it evolved from that era along with OSAS, baptism not required, works not needed.... only faith, and other new age religion re-interpretations to full fill the end time prophecy of..."tickle my ears and tell me what I want to hear"..., etc.

The fact of that new age teaching is that each violate SPECIFIC BIBLE guidance.

The same can be said for what you espouse

 

[Noose]

Now you are simply making things up to fit your premise. How do you know the apostles were not baptized? Jesus told them to go and baptize others... and during Jesus' ministry, his disciples were baptizing. The very FIRST thing the apostle Paul did after having his sight restored was to rise and go be baptized... and that was before even taking nourishment, after going without for three days. Doesn't that seem important to you?

Paul, when finding out that some disciples had not received the Spirit, asked them "into what, then, were you baptized?" He ASSUMED they had been baptized when they became believers.. he found out they had only been baptized with John's baptism. Paul then had them baptized into the name of Jesus, then laid hands on them, and they received the Spirit.

Where, in any of those instances do you see the apostles not thinking baptism was necessary?

Acts 19:1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[SUP]a[/SUP] you believed?”They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”“John’s baptism,” they replied.4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[SUP]b[/SUP] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.


1.In that very instance, Paul thought water baptism was not significant because he said John's baptism (water baptism) was a baptism of repentance only. He even wondered why they had not been baptised by the Holy spirit because to him baptism is by holy spirit and not water.

2. They said they had John's baptism- what makes you think they were not part of those people that John had baptized in river Jordan?

The disciples were only baptized by the Holy spirit:

Acts 1:4On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with[SUP]a[/SUP] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with[SUP]b[/SUP] the Holy Spirit.”

If water baptism was also important then Jesus would have baptized them and it would have been captured in the scriptures as something to be followed, but He didn't.

Assuming that the disciples were water baptized is erroneous because baptism is done by one who is appointed and has authority over God's sacred things; John was appointed and after john, the only people who had authorities were the disciples themselves because they were appointed by Jesus- so saying they were water baptized would bring the question; who baptized them and what authority did they have?

And Paul wasn't water baptized.

 

[LW97]

Acts 2:38 was under the ministry of Peter, not under the one of Paul we are now.

 

[John146]

Acts 2:38 was under the ministry of Peter, not under the one of Paul we are now.

And remember, the question that those Jews asked was, "what we must we do?" The question was not, "what must we do to be saved?"

 

[LW97]

And remember, the question that those Jews asked was, "what we must we do?" The question was not, "what must we do to be saved?"

Correct!!!

 

[DJ2]

And remember, the question that those Jews asked was, "what we must we do?" The question was not, "what must we do to be saved?"

And remember the question was not, "what must we do to show an outward expression of an inward event".

Or whatever that expression is.

 

[hornetguy]

Acts 19:1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[SUP]a[/SUP] you believed?”They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”“John’s baptism,” they replied.4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[SUP]b[/SUP] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.


1.In that very instance, Paul thought water baptism was not significant because he said John's baptism (water baptism) was a baptism of repentance only. He even wondered why they had not been baptised by the Holy spirit because to him baptism is by holy spirit and not water.

2. They said they had John's baptism- what makes you think they were not part of those people that John had baptized in river Jordan?

The disciples were only baptized by the Holy spirit:

Acts 1:4On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with[SUP]a[/SUP] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with[SUP]b[/SUP] the Holy Spirit.”

If water baptism was also important then Jesus would have baptized them and it would have been captured in the scriptures as something to be followed, but He didn't.

Assuming that the disciples were water baptized is erroneous because baptism is done by one who is appointed and has authority over God's sacred things; John was appointed and after john, the only people who had authorities were the disciples themselves because they were appointed by Jesus- so saying they were water baptized would bring the question; who baptized them and what authority did they have?

And Paul wasn't water baptized.

Absolutely wrong.

And, if I was going to play your silly eisegesis games, I would say that the apostles baptized each other.

But, there is also nothing in scripture that says someone has to be "appointed" or "anointed" to baptize someone else. Paul even implies this, when he said that, because of the arguing going on over "I'm better than you, because PAUL baptized me... nanny nanny boo-boo" that he was glad that he had not personally baptized any more of them than he had. That means that others were doing the baptisms. Not apostles.

You are way out in left field on this topic. Too much Kool-Aid.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

(He uses birth as an earthly example to help the lost Nicodemus who believed in works and didnt understand spiritual things to explain something spiritual to him)

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

(again Nicodemus is unable to understand this spiritual lesson even with an earthly example of birth so he uses his earthly reasoning to question Jesus speaking of two physical births)

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(still speaking of brith and trying to relate the two.... born of water = anatomical fluid/natural birth and born of the Spirit = when God makes His children new)

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

(again further explaining to hammer the point in of the two births.... flesh = water Spirit = God)


7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.




_______

if you believe water baptism to be a requirement for salvation then you believe a work will add to the sacrifice of Jesus to aid Him in your salvation



water baptism is a physical cerimony to represent something physical


the same way animal sacrifices would not save anyone
(we need the sacrifice of Jesus)
water baptism will not save anyone
(we need the baptism of the Holy Spirit)

 

[garee]

First of all, name here means authority and not identification names- so they were to baptize in the authority of the Father/Son/Holy spirit which basically means salvation through hearing the gospel and believing it.

Secondly, the apostles and disciples were not water baptized, so i don't think any of them would impose water baptism as a requirement to anyone even if it was common for symbolic purposes.



Baptism is the work of God/Jesus just as John told us "after me comes one who will baptize with the Holy spirit..". So, the apostles were doing the work given to them by Jesus/God.

Water baptism or purification has its foundation in old testament ceremonial law, not a moral law that men could judge others by but a shadow of the good thing to come. Christ our high Priest was baptized with that ceremonial law at the beginning of His ministry as our High Priest so that then he too could officiate with others, baptizing those who desired to be a member of the kingdom of priests (again all Christians are typified as priest)

Today it is still used as a ceremonial law to represent a kingdom of Priest. This is whenever a person believes they are ready to go out into the world and make disciples of men .Like you said in respect to a different kind of baptism of the unseen. Baptizing in the authority of the names of God. In that way all believers are Priest who hold out the gospel.

The ceremonial law is treated as any other ceremonial law...a shadow and not the very substance.

 

[preston39]

The same can be said for what you espouse

D..,

Not sure I understand...example?

 

[preston39]

........

Secondly, the apostles and disciples were not water baptized, so i don't think any of them would impose water baptism as a requirement to anyone even if it was common for symbolic purposes.....

N...,

Pray tell...where did you conclude that from?

 

[Noose]

Absolutely wrong.

And, if I was going to play your silly eisegesis games, I would say that the apostles baptized each other.

But, there is also nothing in scripture that says someone has to be "appointed" or "anointed" to baptize someone else. Paul even implies this, when he said that, because of the arguing going on over "I'm better than you, because PAUL baptized me... nanny nanny boo-boo" that he was glad that he had not personally baptized any more of them than he had. That means that others were doing the baptisms. Not apostles.

You are way out in left field on this topic. Too much Kool-Aid.

Exegesis or not, it is the truth.

These are the authorities in the bible and were all appointed:

1. The law and the Prophets; these included Kings/Prophets/Judges/Leader and their subordinates.
The law and the prophets ended with John who was also appointed to do water baptism as per his own confession "... i was told to do water baptism..."

2. After John came Jesus who was appointed
There are no records of Jesus water baptizing anyone; if He did and it wasn't recorded, then it wasn't that important

3. After Jesus came the disciples who were also appointed by Jesus.

There are no records of the disciples getting water baptism;if they did and it wasn't recorded, then it wasn't that important and even if they did, it must have been with the group that John baptized in river Jordan for the purpose of repentance and revelation of the Messiah- nothing more. In between Jesus and the disciples, we don't see any appointed authority that would have water baptized them, self appointments in matters God is not recognized.

We do have confirmation that the disciples and the apostles received the Spirit baptism after which they hit the road running accomplishing the task they were given. In the Acts of the apostles (records of what they did), it is not mentioned that they water baptized each other at any given moment and if they did and it wasn't recorded, then it wasn't that important.

Claiming anything outside these facts is worse than kool-aid.

 

[Noose]

N...,

Pray tell...where did you conclude that from?

Why would you conclude otherwise?

 

[Noose]

Water baptism or purification has its foundation in old testament ceremonial law, not a moral law that men could judge others by but a shadow of the good thing to come. Christ our high Priest was baptized with that ceremonial law at the beginning of His ministry as our High Priest so that then he too could officiate with others, baptizing those who desired to be a member of the kingdom of priests (again all Christians are typified as priest)

Today it is still used as a ceremonial law to represent a kingdom of Priest. This is whenever a person believes they are ready to go out into the world and make disciples of men .Like you said in respect to a different kind of baptism of the unseen. Baptizing in the authority of the names of God. In that way all believers are Priest who hold out the gospel.

The ceremonial law is treated as any other ceremonial law...a shadow and not the very substance.

I believe you are talking about anointing or appointing which is different from baptism.

These is what water baptism means:

John 1:29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”32Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.33And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”[SUP]f[/SUP]

John used water for a specific reason that he was told when he was appointed.

 

[Zmouth]

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So if born again, what did you see?

Acts 2:38 was under the ministry of Peter, not under the one of Paul we are now.

Wouldn't that mean that immersion in a gas chamber?

John used water for a specific reason that he was told when he was appointed.

Who appointed John? Roman Emperor Augustus, Divi filius or the chief priests of the Jews?

 

[preston39]

Why would you conclude otherwise?

N...,

It doesn't work that way.

Are you going to list support for your stated position or be found short...your choice?