Water Baptism-What Does God's Word Say?
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Water baptism by immersion is essential to becoming a follower of Jesus.
When the people at Pentecost asked what they needed to do, Peter told them to repent, and be baptized. He was not speaking of any kind of spiritual baptism only, as there was no known concept of that to the Jews being taught. They all knew what baptism was, it was a holy ritual of being immersed in water.
When Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, and was blinded, the FIRST thing he did after having his sight restored was to rise up and be baptized.
When the gentiles were shown to have received the Holy Spirit, what was the first thing that the apostles did? Baptized them.
The Ethiopian eunuch read scripture and was taught by Philip... when he reached an understanding, what was the first thing he did? He stopped the chariot and was baptized.
The very last command Jesus gave his disciples was to go and make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them.
If Jesus commanded it, then there should be no question in anyone's mind as to the necessity of it.
When the people at Pentecost asked what they needed to do, Peter told them to repent, and be baptized. He was not speaking of any kind of spiritual baptism only, as there was no known concept of that to the Jews being taught. They all knew what baptism was, it was a holy ritual of being immersed in water.
When Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, and was blinded, the FIRST thing he did after having his sight restored was to rise up and be baptized.
When the gentiles were shown to have received the Holy Spirit, what was the first thing that the apostles did? Baptized them.
The Ethiopian eunuch read scripture and was taught by Philip... when he reached an understanding, what was the first thing he did? He stopped the chariot and was baptized.
The very last command Jesus gave his disciples was to go and make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them.
If Jesus commanded it, then there should be no question in anyone's mind as to the necessity of it.
-
1
- Show all
D
Baptism was nothing new for Israel. Their leaders didn’t ask John the Baptist what he was doing, but they asked him why he was doing it out in wilderness.
Ritual washing or baptism is intimately associated Israel is clear by this verse too.
John 1:31
And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
The book of Acts records Israel’s rejection of Messiah, and so it’s no surprise that throughout the book Christian converts being water baptized is a testimony against that nation.
As Peter fades off the scene and Paul is raised up, God is progressively revealing the mystery of the gospel to him, the apostle to the Gentiles. His epistles are contain the instructions for the church which is now neither Jew or Gentile in Him.
Not one single verse in these epistles contain any instruction to the church on performing any ritual baptism. In fact, eventually Paul declares Christ sent him not to baptize. This is in stark contrast to the so-called great commission. Paul said the twelve “added nothing” to him. For the last 2000 years Israel is still partially blind and Gentiles are not being blessed according to their rise, instead we receive all spiritual blessings in Christ by faith, apart from Israel. This will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
This is what God is doing now, and water baptism is not essential to follow him.
Ritual washing or baptism is intimately associated Israel is clear by this verse too.
John 1:31
And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
The book of Acts records Israel’s rejection of Messiah, and so it’s no surprise that throughout the book Christian converts being water baptized is a testimony against that nation.
As Peter fades off the scene and Paul is raised up, God is progressively revealing the mystery of the gospel to him, the apostle to the Gentiles. His epistles are contain the instructions for the church which is now neither Jew or Gentile in Him.
Not one single verse in these epistles contain any instruction to the church on performing any ritual baptism. In fact, eventually Paul declares Christ sent him not to baptize. This is in stark contrast to the so-called great commission. Paul said the twelve “added nothing” to him. For the last 2000 years Israel is still partially blind and Gentiles are not being blessed according to their rise, instead we receive all spiritual blessings in Christ by faith, apart from Israel. This will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
This is what God is doing now, and water baptism is not essential to follow him.
-
1
- Show all
Sorry, but you are not rightly discerning scripture.... Paul said he was not sent to baptize, because he was sent to evangelize, leaving the baptizing to the others. He only said this because there were believers that were arguing about who was "greater" in the kingdom, based on who baptized them.
And, if he wasn't sent to baptize, then why did he baptize even the few that he DID baptize?
I'll leave it up to you to explain to Jesus why YOU decided that what he said didn't matter. I don't plan to have that question asked of me.
And, if he wasn't sent to baptize, then why did he baptize even the few that he DID baptize?
I'll leave it up to you to explain to Jesus why YOU decided that what he said didn't matter. I don't plan to have that question asked of me.
-
1
- Show all
D
Paul baptized for the same reason he circumcised, kept vows and feasts, and abstained from certain food.
He used his liberty to help minister the gospel of grace to both Jew and Gentile.
Paul was not sent to circumcise, but he circumcised Timothy in order to minister to Jews. He does not circumcise Titus so that he could minister with a Gentile (Gal 2:3). He would later write circumcision avails nothing (Gal 5:2-6).
He goes to Jerusalem to minister to his kinsmen (Rom 15:27). He observes Pentecost to minister to his kinsmen (Acts 20:16). Yet, he teaches that one day is not above another and to boast in Christ not observation of days (Gal 4:9-11; Col 2:16).
He did not eat certain meats to minister to his kinsmen (1 Cor 8:13). Yet, he ate with Gentiles and taught that every creature is good to eat (Gal 2:12; 1 Tim 4:4).
He baptized Crispus (the chief ruler of the synagogue) in the name of the Lord Jesus, but he was glad not to baptize others that the Corinthians would know that the power of God unto salvation is in the gospel of Christ, and not in the baptisms of Peter, Apollos, or Paul (1 Cor 1:12-14).
He baptized some, and did not baptize others. In every case it was for the sake of the gospel of grace (1 Cor 9:22-23).
He used his liberty to help minister the gospel of grace to both Jew and Gentile.
Paul was not sent to circumcise, but he circumcised Timothy in order to minister to Jews. He does not circumcise Titus so that he could minister with a Gentile (Gal 2:3). He would later write circumcision avails nothing (Gal 5:2-6).
He goes to Jerusalem to minister to his kinsmen (Rom 15:27). He observes Pentecost to minister to his kinsmen (Acts 20:16). Yet, he teaches that one day is not above another and to boast in Christ not observation of days (Gal 4:9-11; Col 2:16).
He did not eat certain meats to minister to his kinsmen (1 Cor 8:13). Yet, he ate with Gentiles and taught that every creature is good to eat (Gal 2:12; 1 Tim 4:4).
He baptized Crispus (the chief ruler of the synagogue) in the name of the Lord Jesus, but he was glad not to baptize others that the Corinthians would know that the power of God unto salvation is in the gospel of Christ, and not in the baptisms of Peter, Apollos, or Paul (1 Cor 1:12-14).
He baptized some, and did not baptize others. In every case it was for the sake of the gospel of grace (1 Cor 9:22-23).
I agree with most of what you said here, but Paul is not the only example we have to follow. If you look at all the stories of conversion and acceptance of the free gift of salvation, baptism is mentioned in nearly every one of them.
If water baptism is not necessary, then why is it mentioned at all? If it is necessary in one, it is necessary in every one.
I don't believe there are different "formulas" for coming to Jesus.... really, the only discrepancy we see is when the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized.... and this was a one-off event, given by God to prove to the skeptical Jewish believers that Gentiles were accepted by God just like they were.
If water baptism is not necessary, then why is it mentioned at all? If it is necessary in one, it is necessary in every one.
I don't believe there are different "formulas" for coming to Jesus.... really, the only discrepancy we see is when the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized.... and this was a one-off event, given by God to prove to the skeptical Jewish believers that Gentiles were accepted by God just like they were.
-
1
- Show all
I have heard this claim before about the connection between ritual (ceremonial) washing and baptism.
That scripture does nothing for me in terms of connecting the two.
Other than both being a ceremony that involves water, I see no connection.
And it seems that someone that took that position would be more in favor of sprinkling than immersion.
That scripture does nothing for me in terms of connecting the two.
Other than both being a ceremony that involves water, I see no connection.
And it seems that someone that took that position would be more in favor of sprinkling than immersion.
Would you go so far as to say that a believer that has not been baptized is not saved?
There has been a lot of back and forth on this topic about the value or effect of baptism.
From my perspective, baptism is a ceremony. A ceremony is an outward demonstration of an inward reality.
Therefore, the value of baptism in my view is as a public confession of faith.
Some have used the scripture in Peter's sermon in Acts and the statement in the Nicene creed to claim that water baptism is for the remission (forgiveness) of sins. They conveniently omit the "repent" aspect from "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." vs 30
I wonder what name John the Baptist was baptizing in. It was a baptism of repentance.
There has been a lot of back and forth on this topic about the value or effect of baptism.
From my perspective, baptism is a ceremony. A ceremony is an outward demonstration of an inward reality.
Therefore, the value of baptism in my view is as a public confession of faith.
Some have used the scripture in Peter's sermon in Acts and the statement in the Nicene creed to claim that water baptism is for the remission (forgiveness) of sins. They conveniently omit the "repent" aspect from "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." vs 30
I wonder what name John the Baptist was baptizing in. It was a baptism of repentance.
D
That's a valid question Hornetguy. You bring up a great point with regards to Cornelius. The timing of when these folks were baptized with the Holy Ghost is for Peter's sake, as a sign to the Jews. However, it is very telling that the Spirit was poured out on Cornelius' house immediately upon their receiving of the gospel of Christ. Peter is shocked but he goes with it, and he is the one who commanded them to be water baptized afterwards, and why wouldn't he, up until then it was modus operandi to baptize everyone?
As you rightly said, this was proof that Gentiles were accepted by God just like they were, and it's obvious Cornelius was a saved individual. It's funny that it's often preached "hey look, the gospel is spreading like wildfire to the Gentiles now!" Well uh no, after Peter went back home and fessed up what happened, they praised God for it, but went "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." It's not that Peter was doing something wrong. The kingdom was supposed to be restored to Israel and then the Gentiles would be blessed through them. While the ultimate fulfillment of that is yet to come, it's already happened even though Israel is partially blind.
Now that begs the question, if Paul wasn't sent to baptize like the twelve were, then why did it happen at first? The first century church was 100% Jewish at Pentecost. Baptism for ceremonial cleansing and for conversion was common practice and any Gentile with a basic familiarity with Judaism would have known that. The transition from what God was doing with the Twelve to the dispensation of the gospel committed unto him did not happen overnight. Some time after Paul's initial encounter with the risen Christ he said he would come to visions as God was revealing to him progressively. All that being said, it should come as no surprise that Gentiles would submit to water baptism upon accepting the good news of the Messiah of Israel. Take particular note than ANY instance of Paul's converts being baptized, he NEVER once according to scripture commanded it like Peter. It just says, and they were baptized.
If it was a "necessary" thing as you say, then I would think at least one mention in just one pastoral epistle as instruction for the church on the importance of administering the so-called "sacrement" of baptism would be mentioned, but it's not. Let me ask you this. Paul says we are complete in Christ, lacking nothing. What do you think water is going to do for us considering this truth? To say that it is necessary is eerily similar to the Judaizers who said we must be circumcised to be saved. Jesus plus this, Jesus plus that...
As you rightly said, this was proof that Gentiles were accepted by God just like they were, and it's obvious Cornelius was a saved individual. It's funny that it's often preached "hey look, the gospel is spreading like wildfire to the Gentiles now!" Well uh no, after Peter went back home and fessed up what happened, they praised God for it, but went "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." It's not that Peter was doing something wrong. The kingdom was supposed to be restored to Israel and then the Gentiles would be blessed through them. While the ultimate fulfillment of that is yet to come, it's already happened even though Israel is partially blind.
Now that begs the question, if Paul wasn't sent to baptize like the twelve were, then why did it happen at first? The first century church was 100% Jewish at Pentecost. Baptism for ceremonial cleansing and for conversion was common practice and any Gentile with a basic familiarity with Judaism would have known that. The transition from what God was doing with the Twelve to the dispensation of the gospel committed unto him did not happen overnight. Some time after Paul's initial encounter with the risen Christ he said he would come to visions as God was revealing to him progressively. All that being said, it should come as no surprise that Gentiles would submit to water baptism upon accepting the good news of the Messiah of Israel. Take particular note than ANY instance of Paul's converts being baptized, he NEVER once according to scripture commanded it like Peter. It just says, and they were baptized.
If it was a "necessary" thing as you say, then I would think at least one mention in just one pastoral epistle as instruction for the church on the importance of administering the so-called "sacrement" of baptism would be mentioned, but it's not. Let me ask you this. Paul says we are complete in Christ, lacking nothing. What do you think water is going to do for us considering this truth? To say that it is necessary is eerily similar to the Judaizers who said we must be circumcised to be saved. Jesus plus this, Jesus plus that...
I would absolutely NOT say that. It is not my place to say who is saved and who is not. God the Father is in charge of that, and His ways are not our ways. I fully trust that He will do what is right for us, because He loves His children more completely than we love our own children.
My question would be, if a person is taught scripture, and believes to the point of accepting the free gift of salvation, why would that person NOT be baptized? That is the very first act of obedience to Jesus' teachings that a new believer is supposed to do. Scripture shows us that.
I think that the "back and forth" about the "value" of baptism might be the problem. Humans are trying to second-guess what Jesus clearly taught... even commanded. The apostles did it, the early church did it (according to early historians), it was simply accepted as part of the conversion "event" all the way down to the 18th or 19th century.... until mankind became enlightened enough to question "why should we do that?"
The futility of that kind of thinking was even shown to us in scripture, in the story of Naaman dipping in the Jordan 7 times.
My question would be, if a person is taught scripture, and believes to the point of accepting the free gift of salvation, why would that person NOT be baptized? That is the very first act of obedience to Jesus' teachings that a new believer is supposed to do. Scripture shows us that.
I think that the "back and forth" about the "value" of baptism might be the problem. Humans are trying to second-guess what Jesus clearly taught... even commanded. The apostles did it, the early church did it (according to early historians), it was simply accepted as part of the conversion "event" all the way down to the 18th or 19th century.... until mankind became enlightened enough to question "why should we do that?"
The futility of that kind of thinking was even shown to us in scripture, in the story of Naaman dipping in the Jordan 7 times.
-
2
- Show all
I don't think he had told them to be baptized, because I don't think he realized they had accepted Jesus, until they were visibly filled with the Spirit. How can you tell when a person's heart is pricked to the point of accepting Jesus? Simply teaching someone does not necessarily get them to that point... why would Peter tell them to be baptized, if he wasn't certain they accepted it? From reading the scripture, it sounds as if it all happened pretty much at once... I certainly could be wrong about that, however.
I believe this is because of what I stated in another response. Baptism was the known and accepted thing to do upon acceptance of Jesus.
Sort of like signing a contract... once you read it and accept it, you sign it. We don't have to be specifically told every time, "now, ok, sign the contract"... it is understood that our signing the contract is required, to show our acceptance of it, and our agreement to adhere to it.
I believe this is because of what I stated in another response. Baptism was the known and accepted thing to do upon acceptance of Jesus.
Sort of like signing a contract... once you read it and accept it, you sign it. We don't have to be specifically told every time, "now, ok, sign the contract"... it is understood that our signing the contract is required, to show our acceptance of it, and our agreement to adhere to it.
-
1
- Show all
A believer who does not have a way to be baptized is saved through His will to be baptized. A believer who tells the Lord that he refuses to do what the Lord asks him to do--not because of doing or not doing the rite of baptism but by the heart of the man who has no faith in what the Lord tells him.
That's good. Thanks.
Baptism has become rather disconnected from the conversion "event", as you put it.
Nowadays we do baptisms on occasion. We schedule a baptism class, to make sure everyone understands what we are doing and to give others a chance to catch this boat. It could be a long time until the next one. Then we schedule the day. Then everyone has to be prepared. We invite the extended family to attend. Then there is the day-of prep. Fill the tank and perhaps warming the water. And the service is built around the baptism event. No wonder we don't do it very often. It's a big deal.
Baptism has become rather disconnected from the conversion "event", as you put it.
Nowadays we do baptisms on occasion. We schedule a baptism class, to make sure everyone understands what we are doing and to give others a chance to catch this boat. It could be a long time until the next one. Then we schedule the day. Then everyone has to be prepared. We invite the extended family to attend. Then there is the day-of prep. Fill the tank and perhaps warming the water. And the service is built around the baptism event. No wonder we don't do it very often. It's a big deal.
D
That's right, it was the known and accepted thing to do upon acceptance of Jesus. However, the gift of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles too? Now that was new territory! Eventually they had to settle the matter of whether or not the Gentiles should be circumcised. Looking back, it took Peter a supernatural vision to get him to go in unto a Gentile's house, and what he witnessed was important in the council recognizing Paul (and Barnabas) as right hands of fellowship and acknowledging that he should go unto the heathen. God's kingdom program, for lack of terminology, seemed to be coming to pause while a dispensation of the gospel was being committed unto Paul. This is huge news. I'm quite convinced that if Paul was simply an extension of the Twelve he would have ALSO been sent to baptize. Now don't get me wrong, it's not like water baptism is wrong by any means because our pattern is Paul. It's not like Christ nailed baptism to the cross, I just think it's not significant like it was in the first century church which was firstly and primarily Jewish. I think we have the liberty on whether or not we do it. I've been water baptized twice, and my wife not once, and we follow Christ all the same. It's not wrong to circumcise your flesh but I understand what it means to be circumcised in heart. I understand that water baptism was a means of identifying myself with Christ and his accomplished work, but I also realize that my wife has done that very same thing without getting wet.
Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but I appreciate the conversation.
Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but I appreciate the conversation.
Thank you for the clarification. My belief is that all scripture is meant for our instruction.. Peter and the apostles did not make any distinction that would indicate baptism was only for Jews.. They followed Jesus instructions to baptize believers, as did the early church. Paul apparently believed that as well, evidenced by his immediate desire to be baptized upon belief, and his references to other believers that were baptized.
The connection to circumcision, to my understanding, is that circumcision was a Jewish man's response to God's command. It set them apart from Gentiles. If a Jewish man had said "I don't see the need to mutilate myself simply to show that I am a Jew", then do you think God would have considered him to be a Jew? This was not an optional thing for them...
Baptism is our response to God (Jesus') command.... it is to set us apart, and to show we have accepted the calling. I don't believe it is an optional thing for us, either.
And, Sketch is correct, it IS a big deal....
The connection to circumcision, to my understanding, is that circumcision was a Jewish man's response to God's command. It set them apart from Gentiles. If a Jewish man had said "I don't see the need to mutilate myself simply to show that I am a Jew", then do you think God would have considered him to be a Jew? This was not an optional thing for them...
Baptism is our response to God (Jesus') command.... it is to set us apart, and to show we have accepted the calling. I don't believe it is an optional thing for us, either.
And, Sketch is correct, it IS a big deal....