The Five Baptisms of the New Testament

  • 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.
P

PaulThomson

Well-known member
#81
Oct 29, 2023
4,807
662
113
#81
Beckworth said:
Just a little confused about what you meant by 1 Cor. 12:30. It’s talking about gifts of healing and speaking in tongues. If there is a point there about baptism, I am missing it .

I know we disagree about which baptism saves us—water baptism or Spirit baptism. In Isaiah, God says “Let us reason together.” So let’s see if we can “reason together” about this. This is why I believe that water baptism is the baptism that saves us and is the “one” baptism in Ephesians 4:4.
1) Holy Spirit baptism was performed by God, not man. In the only two times in the New Testament where it happened—Acts 2 and Acts 10, it was NOT being sought by men. They were not asking for Spirit baptism, they were not praying for it, they were not even expecting it .God poured it out on them in a miraculous manner, unexpectantly! But in the Great commission, Jesus tells His disciples that THEY were to go out into all the world and baptize believers. Not The apostles nor any other man had the power to miraculously baptize anyone. This baptism that Christ commands in Matthew 28:18-19 can’t be Holy Spirit baptism because men cannot just go out and miraculously pour out the Holy Spirit on people. This is water baptism that men can administer to believers.

2) Nowhere in the New Testament does it ever say or indicate that Holy Spirit baptism “saved” people. It was not given for salvation. It was a “sign” that validated the apostles in Acts 2, so that the Jews would know that the apostles were from God and their message was from God. What better way to prove to unbelievers that you are speaking the truth than to witness a miraculous out pouring of the Holy Spirit? It was also used as a “sign” in Acts 10. It was to convince the Jews that God had granted salvation to the gentiles.
Notice chapter 11:15-18; when Peter told the Jews how the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius (gentiles), those Jews said, “Then God has granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.” They were convinced because of the Holy Spirit baptism that the Gentiles received. I doubt they would have believed it otherwise. This is the same Peter that told 3000 Jews to “…be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins” in Acts 2. This same man COMMANDS Cornelius and all of his house to be baptized in 10:48. Notice, he again says in the name of the Lord.” Peter is not preaching a different baptism here in Acts 10 from the one he preached in Acts 2. This baptism in Acts 10 that he COMMANDS is for the remission of their sins—just like it was for the Jews in Acts 2. Logic tells you that you are not saved until you have forgiveness of your sins—so Cornelius could not have been saved by Holy Spirit baptism because he still must be water baptized to remove his sins.

The Bible does not contradict itself. It doesn’t teach water baptism for the remission of sins in Acrs 2 and then just a few chapters later teach Holy Spitit baptism for the remission of sins. I know the baptism in Acts 2 that Peter commanded was “water” baptism because they were not to receive the Holy Spirit until AFTER they were baptized.in water. If this was Holy Spirit baptism that Peter was teaching in verse 38, then you would have people being baptized with the Holy Spirit in order to get the the Holy Spirit which makes no sense at all.

Acts 2:22, Peter says that JESUS proved that He was the Son of God by the “miracles, wonders and signs” that He performed when He was with them. These things were used as proof that Jesus was truly from God and not a false prophet.

Hebrews 2:3-4, the writer says that the APOSTLES used “signs, and wonders and miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost” to CONFIRM their preaching. It was used to validate their message was from God.

In Acts 6, the apostles chose 7 men and laying their hands on them they imparted the gift of the Holy Ghost to them so that they could do miracles, heal, and perform other gifts of the Spirit.. Two of these men, Stephen in chapter 7:8 did great wonders and miracles among the people; and Phillip in chapter 8:6-7 performed miracles also, casting out unclean spirits and healing people. It says that the people gave heed to the things that Phillip SPOKE because of the miracles that he did. They were used to CONFIRM the words that they preached.
2 Cor. 12:12 says that these performing “signs, wonders and mighty deeds were the SIGNS of an apostle.

Not everyone in the New Tesrament could perform miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. And no one is said to have received a miraculous baptism except those apostles in Acts 2 and those in Cornelius’s house in Acts 10. Holy Spirit baptism was not for everyone; only the select few that God chose to receive it and for the purpose he used. That’s why I know Holy Spirit baptism is not the baptism Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19; nor is it the “one” baptism used to remove our sins in Ephesians 4:4.
Click to expand...
I was jogging with Jesus the other afternoon and as we were exercising I was discussing baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Act 1:5
John baptized with[fn] water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Also Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Act 11:16

baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ,
1Co 12:13
Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles,[fn] some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit.[fn]

and being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luk 1:15
for he will be great in the eyes of the Lord. He must never touch wine or other alcoholic drinks. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth.[fn]
Luk 1:41
At the sound of Mary's greeting, Elizabeth's child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luk 1:67
Then his father, Zechariah, was filled with the Holy Spirit and gave this prophecy:
Act 2:4
And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages,[fn] as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.
Act 4:8
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of our people,
Act 4:31
After this prayer, the meeting place shook, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. Then they preached the word of God with boldness.
Act 9:17
So Ananias went and found Saul. He laid his hands on him and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road, has sent me so that you might regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Act 13:9
Saul, also known as Paul, was filled with the Holy Spirit, and he looked the sorcerer in the eye.
Act 13:52
And the believers[fn] were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
Eph 5:18
Don't be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit,

I was considering the difference between a pneumatic drill and a hand drill. The hand drill is used by the carpenter as his hands hold the outside and empower the tool from outside and manipulate the tool to achieve His purpose.

The pneumatic drill is held and directed by the carpenter, but is powered from within, by the flow of air through the mechanism.
I thought this distinction could apply to baptism with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit coming/falling/being poured out upon people, versus someone being filled with/ from within by the Holy Spirit.

In being baptised with the Holy Spirit, the person is take hold of by the Holy Spirit without inner holiness produced by the Holy Spirit within, and God uses that impure vessel to manifest His power and achieve His purpose. e.g. murderous Saul prophesying, carnal Samson with divinely enhanced strength, the pridefully competitive disciples healing the sick and casting out demons.

In being filled, the Holy Spirit within a person as a spring of living water, renewing and purifying the soul, becomes a river overflowing from the person and impacting others with works of power and compassion that are generated from the spirit (pneuma) within a sanctified holy vessel. The saints described above.

Samson had the Holy Spirit on Him. Peter during Jesus ministry had the holy Spirit with him and upon him; on resurrection Sunday received the Holy Spirit within him to purify him, and at Pentecost became filled with the Holy Spirit. On Pentecost the crowd had the Holy Spirit upon them, shaking them and wrestling with them to convict them of sin, righteousness and judgment.

Does this distinction sound plusible and biblically sound?
 
Webers.Home

Webers.Home

Well-known member
#85
May 28, 2018
6,122
1,109
113
Oregon
#85
.
"Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38)

I suspect Peter's formula is obsolete because Jesus gave Paul a different message.
He said:

● Rom 10:8-12 . .The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that
is: the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth,
"Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you
will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is
with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

There's no baptism in Paul's formula; in point of fact he scarcely baptized anybody.
If baptism were so all fired important, he would've baptized believers all across the
Roman world wherever he preached the gospel.
_
 
P

PaulThomson

Well-known member
#86
Oct 29, 2023
4,807
662
113
#86
GWH said:
Whether there are one or two baptisms doesn’t matter to me because I have both, but I still prefer harmonizing them by viewing WB as signifying SB.
Click to expand...
Yes. Water baptism expresses outwardly our decision to start believing God's word about Jesus internally, just as circumcision in the Old Testament expressed outwardly Abraham's decision to trust God's covenant offered to him. I don't think I yet have an answer from anyone about how Abraham would have fared, if He had refused to take the seal of circumcision. How did Moses fare when he refused to circumcise his own son?

Exo 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
Exo 4:22 “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.
Exo 4:23 “So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.” ’ ”
Exo 4:24 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him.
Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’[fn] feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!”
Exo 4:26 So He let him go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the circumcision.

Do you think God is pleased with the person who professes faith in Jesus but refuses to be water baptised when they have the opportunity to be so?
 
G

GWH

Groovy
#87
Oct 19, 2024
5,232
1,107
113
USA-TX
#87
PaulThomson said:
Yes. Water baptism expresses outwardly our decision to start believing God's word about Jesus internally, just as circumcision in the Old Testament expressed outwardly Abraham's decision to trust God's covenant offered to him. I don't think I yet have an answer from anyone about how Abraham would have fared, if He had refused to take the seal of circumcision. How did Moses fare when he refused to circumcise his own son?

Exo 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
Exo 4:22 “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.
Exo 4:23 “So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.” ’ ”
Exo 4:24 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him.
Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’[fn] feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!”
Exo 4:26 So He let him go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the circumcision.

Do you think God is pleased with the person who professes faith in Jesus but refuses to be water baptised when they have the opportunity to be so?
Click to expand...
I think WB is a wonderful way of proclaiming saving faith in Jesus publicly,
but there is no getting around the fact that Paul did not say it is required for salvation,
but rather he said believers should confess Jesus as Lord (Acts 16:30-31, Rom. 10:9-10),
and God is grieved by hateful talk (Eph. 4:29-32) and pleased when we live as children of light (Eph. 5:11-15).
 
B

Beckworth

Well-known member
#88
May 15, 2019
978
395
63
#88
I suspect Peter's formula is obsolete because Jesus gave Paul a different message.
He said:

● Rom 10:8-12 . .The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that
is: the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth,
"Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you
will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is
with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

There's no baptism in Paul's formula; in point of fact he scarcely baptized anybody.
If baptism were so all fired important, he would've baptized believers all across the
Roman world wherever he preached the gospel.
_[/font][/QUOTE]



Psalms 119:160 tells us that the SUM of God’s word is truth. We are to take it ALL. One verse does not cancel out another. It’s ALL true. There is no contradiction between Peter and Paul and what they said about salvation. We are to ADD it all together and take the SUM. BOTH baptism and confession are necessary to salvation; just like Peter said, both “repentance and baptism” are necessary Acts 2:38. Just as Jesus said, BOTH “belief and baptism are necessary to salvation. Mark 16:16. There is no reason someone would CHOOSE just one command in the Bible' and not take them ALL. Not if they are serious about going to heaven.

As for Paul, he, himself, was baptized to “WASH AWAY HIS SINS.” Acts 22:16. Then, as a result of his teaching and preaching, “many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were BAPTIZED. Acts 18:8. Sounds like to me that Paul believed and preached the necessity of “baptism.” He also taught the Philippian jailer to be baptized in Acts 16. After speaking the word of God to him, the jailer and all of his house were BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY! Verse 33. Does that sound like he thought baptism was not important??? He taught Lydia in Acts 16 and the Holy Spirit said that she “heeded the things SPOKEN BY PAUL,and …SHE AND HER HOUSEHOLD WERE BAPTIZED.” No, I believe you are wrong about how Paul felt about baptism. The scriptures paint a very different picture. Baptism was clearly in the “formula” that Paul preached.

In 1 Cor. 1 Paul contended with the Christian’s there because they were calling themselves after men—like men do today, calling themselves Lutherans after Martin Luther. He said that it takes 2 things for you to be able to call yourself after another person. (1). That person would have to have been crucified for you , and (2). You would have to be BAPTIZED into that person’s name. Verse 13. Sound familiar? Acts 2:38 says we are to be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus said in the Great commission in Matt. 28:18-19 the apostles were to go into all the world BAPTIZING men into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Acts 4:12 says that there is no other name under heaven given by Men by which we MUST be saved. Nor is there salvation in any other name. Paul clearly thought baptism was extremely important. Why are we called “Christian”? We are called “Christian’s” because we have been baptized into Christ; Paul says the only way to be called by His name is by being baptized INTO HIS NAME. That harmonizes with Galatians 3:27 that says when we are BAPTIZED into Christ, we PUT ON CHRIST. No one has a right to wear the name of Christ—Christian—unless they have been baptized INTO CHRIST; unless they have been BAPTIZED INTO HIS NAME. Does that sound like Paul thought baptism “”wasn’t “so all fired important?” The Bible does not teach what you are saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.