Water Baptism-What Does God's Word Say?

Yes, I am saying that it is Jesus' command. It's pretty plain in scripture. Jesus disciples were baptizing even as Jesus taught, and he specifically told the disciples that they were to spread his kingdom, which included baptizing the believers.

It was not Paul's place to "command" baptism... it was simply his place to be sure it was carried out the way Jesus intended.

I feel like most people don’t see the ‘dispensational’ shift from Peter to Paul. I often hear preachers just name Paul a great missionary who wrote half the New Testament. Really, that’s your synopsis of Paul? Once I began to see these things more clearly, that’s when I started to evaluate baptism more closely. Paul is never interested in performing any religious act unless it involves reaching Jews for Christ. His letters only speak to the spiritual immersion that takes places when you believe. No doubt the imagery of their physical immersion into the water was at the forefront of their mind when they contemplated the spiritual reality of being fully immersed into his death and his resurrection. This is the One Baptism Paul speaks of. Not that water baptism ceases to exist but that it only speaks externally to the inward reality of being immersed into Christ.

It’s not hard to compare Paul’s ministry to that of the Twelve. Consider this for example.

John 20:21-23 KJV
[21] Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. [22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them , and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: [23] Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Remitting and retaining sins. Sounds like Kingdom work. Looks like the Twelve were given authority of the Holy Ghost here:

Acts 5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it AT THE APOSTLES' FEET.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

Sounds a lot like the Holy Ghost power needed for this kind of kingdom authority:

"ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." -Jesus

I heard a lame excuse, or I dont know what do you think from someone who professed belief in christ but never seemed to follow through.

I invited them to be baptised because our church is holding baptisms in feb.

The response I got back was 'I dont want to be naked' and 'I'm a private man'.

I wrote back you just get baptised as you are in your clothes and get changed afterwards. I dont know where he got this idea that you are stripped naked to be baptised.

I think some people either dont understand or or making a joke of it. Well I dont think God is laughing. Its a commitment to follow Him and represents the spiritual reality that you are immersed in the Christ, by both washing and regeneration.

More on this subject. This scripture connects baptism to washing, using the global flood as an example.
Noah's family = saved through water, which "symbolizes baptism that now saves you also..." - vs 21
Baptism defined as "... not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God." - vs 21

1 Peter 3:18-22
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Even more on this.

So, it seems that in scripture there is both a separation and a connection between baptism and ceremonial washing.
The same Greek word is used to describe both. Yet in the English translation the one is called baptism and the other washing.
Even for something as mundane as washing a cup the Greek word for baptism is used.

There are over 64 variations of the Greek word for baptize/wash. See Strong's #907-910.

In addition to the connection made with the global flood, the connection is also made to the crossing of the Red Sea.
And the Israelites are said to be "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." - vs 2

1 Corinthians 10:1-2
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Yes, it seems the translators felt the need to transliterate the word baptizo into baptism as opposed to translate it. This is not the only instance where a new word is needed. Take Passover for example. The Greek word is pascha, and William Tyndale coined the word. What's even more interesting to me with regards to this, is that there's ONE place in the KJV new testament that pascha is translated something different that Passover... and that's Easter. Scholars over the years have often decried a mistranslation, but how could they screw up Pascha here? They couldn't. It's the only post-resurrection mention of 'Passover', so it would seem here that the word Easter is not some evil Pagan word like some would have us believe. First century Christians saw the fulfillment of Passover in Christ and celebrated it. How the word was coined is another study, but interesting theories are out there. Sorry I know that was a bit off topic, but that was free of charge.

Another great reference, and this is undeniable proof of how baptism is used it doesn't always mean to get wet. The Israelites certainly passed through the water but on dry land. The point however is they were immersed into Moses who is a type of Christ, who delivered us from bondage.

Yes! the point being Noah's type, and water baptism as a figure!

You might not have realized also that 1 Peter is addressed to Jews. I'm not saying we don't benefit from it...

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

The strangers scattered refers to the "diaspora", the dispersed Jews out of their homeland in every nation. The first two chapters confirm this as well but I'll cut it short here.

That's interesting. Well I certainly don't know of this man's belief or commitment, but I would just confirm the gospel with him, and how Christ did all the work.

Titus 3
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Focus on what really matters.

1 Cor 2:2
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

If he confesses Jesus as Lord, follow Paul's pattern in this, as there is not a single instance where he said anything to compel anyone to be water baptized as Peter did. Explain to him his baptism into Christ is accomplished by the Spirit and he is complete in Him, lacking nothing. It would be wrong to assume that his belief is in vain if he doesn't submit to a ritual he may not even understand at all. Let him work out his own salvation with fear and trembling.


"And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Philippians 2:11-13

I don't think that is correct.
People make way to much out of Paul's statement that he was not sent by God to baptize, but to preach the gospel.
Note these references.

Acts 19:3-6
So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul 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.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

1 Corinthians 1:13-17
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Okay, let me ask you this. The 'great commission' is said to be the instruction from Jesus to baptize folks right? He tells the Eleven specifically, go and teach all nations, baptizing them... Would you say that Christ sent them to baptize? Why or why not? Wouldn't it be inconsistent of Paul, if he truly were simply an extension of the Twelve's kingdom ministry, to say that Christ did not send him to baptize. I get your point in pointing out 1 Corinthians, and I see the thrust of that passage in it's context, however, if this were Peter, James, or John saying "Christ did not send me to baptize", I guarantee someone's going to raise a little red flag and say "what's that now?"

Don't you find it just a little strange that Christ declared this worldwide 'great commission' before Paul was radically encountered on the road to Damascus? before the risen Lord revealed the mystery of the gospel for him to take the nations of the world? a commission that was recognized by the Lamb's apostles at the Jerusalem council. What were they to withstand God, as Peter famously said?

Furthermore, isn't it interesting how Peter allegedly has the GO from Christ to take the gospel to the world and yet it took a divine vision to compel him to go in unto a dirty Gentile's home? There's a great inconsistency with the way the so-called great commission is being taught. The gospel of the kingdom, the good news of the kingdom, will once again be proclaimed to the Jews scattered, as well as the rest of the world, but this program was put on pause. This is evident by Paul's unique apostleship and the revelation given to him, in that grace has been in marvelous display in a time of God's longsuffering to a world that rejects him. But judgement day is coming, and the good news of the kingdom will once again be offered to those who rejoice for his coming.

What does scripture say about when one receives the Spirit?

I think you have fallen into the trap of WAY overthinking a very simple concept and command. and trying to bend it to our human way of thinking. If it doesn't make sense to us, then scripture must be wrong, or we have simply mis-understood scriptures for the past 1900 years or so.

Paul didn't emphasize baptism because it was accepted as what is to be done upon acceptance of Jesus. He even asked (as pointed out by Sketch) which baptism the new converts were baptized into. He didn't ask if they had been baptized... it was assumed that they had been..... because it was the norm... it was the way Christ and the apostles did it.

I don't find it odd about Peter at all.... Jews were spread out all over the world, so "going into all the nations" and preaching the gospel could have certainly meant only to the Jews. Peter received the vision to "straighten him out" as to his misconception about who was acceptable.

Jesus said all power has been given to me. Why would He then say go ye and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?
Matt 28:18-19
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Great Question.

According to Ezekiel, the promise of the new covenant to Israel, of which we are able ministers! God promised to put his spirit within them, and Paul said this happens when we believe.

Ezekiel 36:27
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also AFTER THAT YE BELIEVED, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Romans 8:9,16
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his......The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

2 Corinthians 1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Ok..i have two different and opposing views and not sure which one is correct.

One says water baptism is just a ritual.

The other says Jesus commanded his disciples to do it.

It does seem they did do it, for they both used water ..Phillip did with the eunuch as he said 'heres water, whats to stop me from being baptised?' And did it in Jesus name, and the result was being filled with the holy spirit.
Why did Paul say he didnt do it. Well I might offer that he was focused on preaching, while Silas, Barnabas and the others that travelled with him were doing the baptising. Its like Billy Graham. I often wondered why Billy Graham never baptised anyone in his stadium preachings. Well he was assigned a task to preach, but it doesnt mean there would not be any follow up baptism with his ministry teams and local churches.

I agree baptism was the norm, but Paul was concerned about why they hadn't been baptized with the Holy Ghost because that would have signified that they believed "on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

Nothing about the text indicates Peter needed any "straightening out"...nothing. In fact, he was in full compliance with what Jesus had instructed him to do. He was to teach all that Christ had commanded him and the others, but he had not had this revelation before. It was critical that Peter learn this and see it for himself because it was the precursor to Paul's commission. Had this not happened there would have been no small conflict with the chief enemy of the church, Saul of Tarsus, and the Apostolic authority imparted on the Twelve. Peter did not yet know everything there was to know about the good news of Jesus Christ and what God had in store before the foundation of the world.

It is a Jewish rite, with it's root in the washings of the law. Philip would have been intimately familiar with Jewish purification and conversion practices, which by that time included water baptism. I agree the context of Paul saying he was not sent to baptize has great meaning to the problem he's addressing to the Corinthians, but it's also very telling that if he received his instruction from the risen Lord, he didn't get it from the disciples, who would have imparted to him their instruction, to go and teach all nations, baptizing them. If Paul wasn't sent to baptize why would he say such a thing to the Corinthians and further the confuse the matter. He could've said God sent me not to baptize, but the important thing is that you did, regardless of who performed it. No, he's only interested in Christ and him crucified.


Something tells me the Twelve's ministry of proclaiming the good news of the kingdom was put on pause, but will resume in the future.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The end is yet to come for the last 2000 years. Why?

"For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me (Paul)."

No. I don't think anything has been put on hold.
And I don't think Paul was told NOT to baptize. It just wasn't his primary calling.