Some people hear the gospel of the Kingdom preached to them, repent from their sins, and then attempt to live the Christian life, skipping the step of baptism. There are many different reasons for this.
Some don’t want to.
Some don’t believe we have to.
Some just never get around to it and don’t really think it’s that big of deal. It’s not exactly high on their priority list…
So, is it important? Do we have to? When do we get baptized? Are we in a rush? Should we do this immediately, or can we procrastinate and put it off? How much should we know, understand, and believe, before we say, “I will?”
Let’s see what Scripture tells us about this subject of BAPTISM:
1) Do we HAVE to?
Based on the Great commission, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 24:19-20.
If Jesus commands us to make new disciples and baptize them, then we need to obey that commandment.
2) Why be baptized? Is it important?
How major or minor is this symbolic act as a part of our Christian walk? Pretty major!
A.) To be saved and obedient to our Lord Messiah
Jesus said in Mark 16:16 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved, but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”
If you “believe and are baptized, you shall be saved”. Salvation is a pretty big deal that I certainly don’t want to mess up or play around with. If it’s a simple thing, and I have no reason why I cannot perform this action, then why would I choose not to obey Him, especially if it could mean my salvation?
I have had this discussion many times with people, and I always bring up the thief on the cross who was promised by Jesus that he would see him in the kingdom when he comes….he certainly hadn’t had the opportunity to be baptized, yet he was obviously saved. I’m sure there are certain circumstances and exceptions that God may make in people’s lives. Yet, who wants to take the risk if you have some water and someone to baptize you? What holds you back? Is it your unbelief, or is it your unwillingness to obey God?
B.) To receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
“Peter 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.” Acts 2:38
3) When do you get baptized?
“But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” Acts 8:12
I think a simple understanding and knowledge of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God [that it will be an everlasting kingdom that is to come, with Jesus as King, here upon the earth] is fundamental. We must know and understand that Jesus is that anointed King of that coming Kingdom; that he was miraculously created in the womb of Mary by God’s Spirit (thus Jesus was called the Son of God). We must understand the basics of who Jesus was and is ~ that he was the one who was prophesied about in the Old Testament by the prophets as the Messiah [anointed king], to bring us the good news of the Kingdom, to die on the cross for our sins, and then be raised by God to immortality, the first man ever to receive this gift. Jesus ascended into heaven, exalted by God, to sit at His right hand, until the time has come, when God will send His Son back to the earth, to begin to set up and establish his millennial rule and dominion over the entire earth. If you understand these basics and believe them; then by george, you’re ready to get baptized! It’s really not that complicated, is it? Even a CHILD can understand these truths and believe!
I think of the story with the Ethiopian. Philip showed up, preached Jesus to him, and then as they went along, the Ethiopian cried “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he [the Ethiopian] answered, “I believe that Jesus Messiah is the Son of God,” and then Philip baptized him.
What is interesting was, the Ethiopian’s reaction to finally getting to understand Scripture and getting a grasp on who this Jesus was. As soon as he understood, something clicked, and he wanted to be baptized right that minute! Can you imagine his excitement? His thrill? His desire to be baptized? He didn’t want to wait. He didn’t want to ponder it. He believed, and he was baptized. So, I think the underlying issue isn’t whether you should be baptized, or when you should be baptized, but DO YOU BELIEVE? If so, then go get baptized. Don’t delay.
4) By Whom Should you be baptized?
Interestingly enough, the Bible does not command your baptism to be by anyone specific. The Great Commission was spoken to all of us, not just twelve men. It applies to all of us. Not just pastors. The Bible does not require a baptism be performed by an elder of one wife, deacon, man or woman, Jew or Gentile. It remains silent on this subject. Of course, like any other topic, where there is freedom in Christ, MAN likes to make up his own rules and add them to Scripture. However, if we are going by Scripture, there are no mandates on who may baptize you. Common sense tells us, it will be by another believer, a sister or brother in Christ Jesus, who shares your belief in the Gospel of the Kingdom and Jesus Christ.
5) What does Baptism signify?
“And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Luke 3:3
“Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4
“having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up in Him [Jesus] through faith in the working of God, who raised Him [Jesus] from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.” Colossians 2:12-13.
Baptism – to be immersed in a body of water, to go completely under the water – signifies death – going down to the grave and being buried; dead in our sins; dead to our old sinful, fleshly, worldly selves.
To be raised up out of the water symbolizes us being resurrected or raised to a new life, to be a new creation in Christ Jesus. We are thus ‘born again.’ It is a rebirth – even as adults – to become new again. Our sins of our past life, our mistakes, our poor choices and behaviors that God would have found displeasing are wiped clean by the blood of Jesus. We are cleansed. Our sins forgiven.
With Baptism, comes repentance. We acknowledge and confess our sins, turn away from our old way of life, and choose to walk in a new path. From this day forward, we will choose to walk in the Spirit – guided by God’s Spirit [the Holy Spirit] – defined as “the mind and energy behind the works and word of God” (Greg Deuble). This gift of the Holy Spirit will help us walk the Christian life. To attempt to do so without God’s help, is to try by using our own power and strength. The results will be a far cry from what God has planned for us. With man, this is impossible, but with God, we can begin to see the transformation that He will begin to work in our lives, to begin the process and journey of conforming us into the image of His Son, Jesus.
Baptism, therefore, is one of the initial steps of your walk with Christ Jesus; since to walk with him and obey him, and walk in the Spirit, we must be baptized by the Holy Spirit, and that typically comes with our water baptism (although there is one noted case in Scripture that I know of, that it came later).
Summary
Baptism is important, we must do it, and we should not delay. Those who oppose it or drag their feet, with some excuse of why they are not being baptized, are the ones who are resisting God. Quit struggling and give Him ALL your heart, ALL your soul, ALL your mind, ALL your strength, and obey Him in ALL His commands. You cannot pick and choose which commandments that you’re willing to do, and cast aside and argue about the ones you’re not comfortable with. Yes, it might cast you out of your comfort zone…however, if you’ve followed God for very long, when isn’t He casting you out of your comfort zone? He wants to stretch and grow you, and that means change.
The first step to true change and transformation: when you decide to obey His Son in this command to be baptized.
What’s holding you back?
“The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel.” Mark 1:15
“And Peter said to them,
“Repent and let each of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
“For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”
“So then, those who had received his word [of the kingdom] were baptized and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”
Acts 2:38-39, 41.
Can you begin to IMAGINE what the Church would begin to look like, the type of power that we would see God utilizing in and through us, if we repented from our sins, believed in His Gospel of the Kingdom and Jesus Christ, and were baptized in the Name of Jesus? Perhaps, we would see 3,000 people added daily… imagine! Better yet…. BELIEVE!
This reminds me of a story…
A baptist minister was asked if he believed in total immersion baptism and he said, ‘Believe in it?! Why I have seen it done!’
I have to say the same about those who question baptism.
Hi,
Is this what the record in Mt 28 states? So, Jesus was speaking to all of us?
If so, Angela. have you gone to all nations preaching and teaching them? If not, why not? Is it a good idea to take one part of a statement that seems more conveniently possible (teaching and baptizing others) and take it as addressed to oneself while neglecting another part which is not quite as convenient (leaving home and going to all nations) ?
As for me, I’d rather read the record correctly, observing in the context who was speaking to and commanding whom …
I also observe that apparently the apostles — who were the ones whom Jesus commanded there — did NOT literally carry out what our Bibles state regarding “baptizing them in the (threffold? triple? triune?) name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” … cp. what is stated in the book of Acts where people are said to have been baptized.
Wolfgang,
I do not wish to avoid directly answering your questions aimed at me, however I have a question for you first, before I address them:
Wolfgang, have you ever been fully immersed in the waters of baptism for the forgiveness of your sins, in the name of Jesus?
Answer my question, and then I will answer yours.
Hi Angela,
having repented and confessed Jesus as Messiah and my Lord, I have indeed been fully immersed in the waters of baptism and been forgiven of my sins in the name of Jesus … however, the baptism was carried out by the Lord himself and those waters of baptism was not a river, a lake, an ocean, swimmingpool or bathtub with literal H2O …
As the Lord Jesus taught his disciples just prior to his ascension, it was John the baptist who baptized in (literal) water … and he had been ordained by God to do so in his particular ministry pointing to the one who was to come after him who would baptize – not with water, but – with spirit.
Jesus did NOT baptize anyone in water … why would he command his disciples/followers to do what he never did?
Angela,
by the way, what actually was the purpose of asking your question before answering my questions?
Now that I did answer your question, I expect your answers to the various questions I asked of you in my earlier note … and, please, do answer the questions rather than being evasive and/or using my above answer to your question as a sort of “cop out” and saying “well, since you {ta ta ta ta ta ta ….}, I see no need to answer your questions, because {ta ta ta ta ta ….. }”
Wolfgang
If there is no literal water [H2O] present in the “baptism” of say, the Ethiopian eunuch, what was there?
Wolfgang
PS: would you also agree with this statement?
[bold mine]
John 4:2 says that Jesus baptized not, but his disciples.
So why didn’t Jesus baptize? He was baptized himself of John.
He commanded his disciples to baptize.
Wasn’t it for the sake of the gospel that Jesus did everything that he did?
I wonder what some people might say if they had been baptized by Jesus while others were baptized by one of his disciples? (as we think of how people can be)
I suppose he wanted everyone to know that everyone’s baptism is as good as anyone else’s, and that all the baptisms were done by his approval and his authority.
I also suppose that he may have wanted to keep a distinction between being baptized with the holy Spirit and with fire, as being something that he would do as something somewhat different than any other kind of baptism though the baptisms work hand in hand.
Not only do we need the baptism of the holy Spirit, but we also need to be baptized into his death, being willing to die to self, and to live unto God.
I once saw a man get baptized in a cold lake. He was told by the pastor that whatever it is he is leaving behind, to just leave it down there and to not bring it up with him.
The man came out of the waterand to shore saying “#@%&66^^^^***!” how cold the water was.
What good does a baptism like that do anyone unless their conscience is renewed? I hope he felt some convicition for his use of certain terms and that he began to feel the effects of his baptism, the joining of himself to the Lord in order to die to self and to begin life anew in a better way….the answer of a clean conscience.
I wonder what a clean conscience should say?
Blessed be God who has given me….because of Jesus, or something like that I suppose.
Xavier,
you should learn to read more carefully what others write …
I wrote in my reply to Angela about my baptism and said that there was no literal H2O involved ….
As for your question about the Ethiopian eunuch, he wanted to get into water and Philip accommodated his wish stating that there was nothing against doing so after he heard the eunuch confess his belief that Jesus was the Son of God, etc …
Also, that record does NOT state that baptism must be a full immersion in a river or some other body of water … actually, considering how shallow rivers normally are in that particular area of Palastine where they were travelling, it is doubtful that the eunuch was fully immersed …
Furthermore, that record does NOT state that the getting into water was mandatory and thus ordered, commanded or demanded by Philip in his teaching to the eunuch prior to the eunuch’s water baptism
Xavier,
as for your quote from V.P. Wierwille, I would not agree that all the records about people being baptized in Acts do not mention water … seeing that the record in Acts 8 about the eunuch mentions water …
I would say that interpreting “water” as the necessary or mandatory element for a “baptism” into all records about baptism would be an unscriptural private interpretation
Scripture does mention (for example in Jesus’ own words shortly before his ascension) that John had been baptizing with water, and even John himself mentions that after him would come someone with a different baptism (not in water, BUT in spirit). Scripture does NOT mention that there would be another “water (Christian) baptism” after John’s water baptism ….thus, any such ideas would appear to me to also be private interpretation
Ray,
I suppose your example shows that a “washing in WATER” will not clean a conscience or change a person’s habits and character … one can NOT “wash” away something on the inside by applying water to the outside.
Now, it seems that folks proposing that “water baptism” has something to do with making for a “clear consicence”, etc. seem be somehow view their act of getting into water and some words spoken by another believer/pastor/minister as a sacramental or perhaps mystical action (as seen in various religions’ baptismal initiation rites, or also as in the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations which view a “baptism” as the rite of initiation into their group)
Wolfgang
I thought that’s what the word “baptism” meant, “the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, ‘to dip’)” [Vine's].
Jesus baptized many disciples in water, authorizing his agents to perform the ceremony (John 4:1, 2). After giving orders that Christians are to baptize others until the end of the age (Matt. 28:19, 20), the Apostles commanded the public to “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38).
But that’s what the word “baptism” means does it not?
I think a strong argument is Jesus’ own practice of baptizing people and the new birth described as one of “water AND the spirit” in John 3.
It seems that faith makes the difference in baptism and everything else.
Angela
Are you familiar with this…?
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-is-so-difficult-about-water.html
Xavier,
Thanks for providing us with another great link. It was very informative…
Xavier,
you make reference to an article by Prof. Buzzard, in which he states the following
It’s rather astonishing that Prof. Buzzard sees Christianity already in existence during the time when the OT Law age was in effect … cp. his claim that Jesus baptized in water by means of his agents doing water baptizing (and that during the early stages of his public ministry).
The truth is that water baptism was initially put in effect by God ordaining John the baptist to proclaim and conduct water baptism and it was in effect until the time it was superseded by that baptism which John already spoke of which would be conducted by the one coming after him … and that baptism was NOT another baptism in water but baptism with spirit.
Things are so simple … but “water baptism” seems to be another “holy cow” (similar to Trinity Godhead) which some still would like to hold on to … and the arguments Prof Buzzard puts forth in his article in favor of water baptism really miss the point in that they are based on a wrong premise (see above)
Wolfgang
Yes, as astonishing as it may sound to some, Christianity was in existence with its founder, Jesus the Christ!
Well I just do not agree with the foundation of your argument which assumes that Jesus AND his apostles did not continue the practice of water baptism. They baptized people in BOTH water and the spirit.
The Baptizer ADDS the fact that Messiah would baptize people with spirit in a way that he would not. Nowhere is it specified or implied that this practice would cease with the Baptizer. In fact, when the comparison is made when it says “Jesus was baptizing more people than John”, it suggests that they both baptized in water.
The authorization of water baptism is based on the plain Apostolic example of Peter and Paul. Jesus himself had been baptized in water. The Baptizer baptized in water and of course we know about Phillip’s baptism of the eunuch in water.
In Acts 10.47 Peter immediately commands believers to be baptized in water in view of the “spirit” they had already received.
In Acts 10.48, on the authority of Jesus Christ, he commanded them to be baptized. This of course is baptism in water because he has just stated “surely no one can refuse THE WATER for these to be baptized”. Peter’s disciples were duly baptized in water, as is perfectly obvious. As understood by ALL commentary.
When Peter later recounts this story of the conversion and WATER BAPTISM of Gentiles, he repeates in Acts 11.17 his own conviction that the water baptism was an ESSENTIAL PART OF THE CONVERSION PROCESS! As we saw in 10.47, he wanted NO ONE TO OBSTRUCT THE USE OF WATER FOR BAPTISM. This authorization of water baptism is SO IMPORTANT that Luke repeates it in Acts 11.17. Where Peter states that he dared not obstruct the water baptism of converts. Peter is simply underlying the danger of obstructing proper water baptism.
The idea that Peter is unsure on how to behave in a New Covenant context is without any basis at all!
Later in Acts 19.5 disciples of John the baptist were likewise baptized in the name of Jesus. Paul then laid hands on them for the reception of the spirit.
All of these is to say that Jesus’ command to baptize people of all nations till the end of the age remains in full force. A question of simple obedience [Heb 5.9, establishes obedience as a critical key to salvation]. It is astonishing that anyone would find this in anyway difficult.
A difference of opinion as something as fundamental as water baptism tends to obstruct the unity which we all desire and which Jesus commands!
You are certainly right that Christian believers should be baptized. But what of rebaptising? Baptists in past would rebaptize Catholics, so on ,WCG would rebaptize all. Were do you stand on this? Not sure myself.
Here is a question for all – I was baptized as an infant in the Catholic church, which I dismiss as irrelevant.
Since becoming a reborn Christian 18 months ago, I have yet to be baptized. Problem is, my church is trinitarian and use the trinitarian baptism formula, which I don’t want to do. I have not asked if they would do an Acts 2 baptism but still, it is a trinitarian church and I think I would still feel queasy even if they obliged.
Also, I may travel to Israel in 2013 and would really love to be baptized in the Jordan. I might wait until then.
Suggestions?
Hi Anthony,
well … there seem to be oodles of water baptism doctrines around in Christian circles and each sort of use their particular “water baptism” doctrine to distinguish themselves from the other groups, thus using this very doctrine as a major hindrance for the unity to which you make reference.
So then, which of the many water baptism doctrines is correct and should be followed and regarded as the true Christian water baptism, and which should be dismissed as faulty, incorrect, etc.? Should there be a re-baptism if someone changes church (cp Randall D. White’s comment and question above) ?
I have found that water baptism is one of the more confused issues in Christian circles and by far not as simple as you try to make it … cp. the above comments which point out certain problems related to your water baptism doctrine …
Hi Anthony,
you wrote above
I have come to learn that what many find difficult is the matter of a church, group, or its preacher lording their particular “water baptism ritual” over them and demanding that people be baptized in their particular way … because if they don’t follow that directive, they run the chance of ending up in eternal hell fire …
See, even you do so — even though not quite as openly, but what else are the implications of your statement regarding “obedience as a critical key to salvation” ??
Antioch
Baptism is not about whether or not you get the right “formula” read to you or where you do it. It is simply about a public act demonstrating your “obedience of faith” to God’s commandments.
Period.
Wolfgang,
Thanks for your thoughts. Baptism in water, however you administer it, is without question taught by both Jesus and the Apostles. That much at least almost every commentator for 2000 years has understood. It is true that some developed a Dispensationalist or ultra-dispensationalist scheme (a disaster in my opinion!) which got rid of baptism in water for completely different reasons.
Once water baptism is granted, then it is a question of whether it’s administered to infants or responsible adults. I think the pattern in the NT is clear here, and I highly recommend it today since there is such confusion over what needs to be believed as the Christian faith. Acts 8:12 is a simple, unifying basis. A grasp of the fundamentals – the Gospel of the Kingdom and understanding of the true God and Jesus – provided the basis of the faith. In the case of the Samarians, the correctness of water baptism was immediately confirmed by the fact that the Apostles laid their hands on these water-baptized people, thus affirming their approval of their baptism. As I wrote above, Peter speaks of himself as in danger of obstructing God if he withheld water baptism from those who had believed!
In our circle of friends there are many who come out of evidently corrupt systems of theology and conduct who desire to be baptized once they’ve established the true bases of faith. This is always a moving and meaningful ceremony. This weekend it happens that we’re going to baptize a PhD in Theology, 59 years old, a former Baptist preacher, who after 3 years of intensive study now sees that almost everything he taught was false. His reexamination of Scripture did not lead him to think that water baptism was other than the NT public ceremony for initiation into faith.
The great commission in Matthew lasts until the end of the age, the second coming. Baptism is part of that commission. When the apostles baptized they baptized in water with the belief that the holy spirit was also part of becoming a Christian. When Paul said he could not remember which families he baptized, he could not possibly have meant, “I don’t remember which ones I baptized in the spirit.” This simply shows what all commentary understands – that baptism, without further explanation, means baptism in water. This has been the view of our unitarian brothers and sisters from the time of the Reformation, a tradition not to be taken lightly I think. We are part of that noble stream of Anabaptists, many of whom suffered heroically for their rejection of baptism in the mainstream churches.
Antioch,
I was baptized as a baby, at about three days old. In the denomiation where I went to church as a boy growing up, that’s how it was done.
Later on, I became involved in home Bible groups with an organization that did not do bapisms. I never saw a baptism done in that organization.
People there either felt they didn’t need to be baptized, or for one reason or another didn’t seem to ask.
I’ve been to a few churches since then that did baptise adults in a water tank which was enough to get them all the way under.
As I have seen many people who are Christians, I noticed that some of them seemed to be all about the Trinity.
When Jesus told his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit, I don’t think he was all about the Trinity, in the way I speak of some people being all about the Trinity.
I don’t think it was like that with Jesus and his disciples. I don’t think they were all about the Trinity, as if that was one of the most important things to them.
I’m assuming they didn’t even use the word Trinity, or the terms we might often hear today that would give us a clue that some are quite a bit about the Trinity.
I used to wonder if I should be water baptized again. But I didn’t want to be baptised by someone who was all about the Trinity, though right now I don’t think I would mind at all being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.
I’m not even sure if I would want to be baptized by someone if they were all about baptism, as if everyone must be baptized in water in order to be saved.
Is there anybody that will simply baptize as a service to God, by Jesus Christ, and to his fellow man, just doing it simply because a person sees it in the Bible and would like it done?
I hope so, because there’s more Jesus taught on baptism than simply doing it in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit. Didn’t he teach them to serve one another, girding himself with a cloth and washing the disciples feet?
Antioch, if you want to be baptized, I hope you find one who will baptize you the way you would like to be baptised, however, may I tell you this also?
I have been anointed with oil in the name of Jesus Christ, and in Jesus’ name, but there was a time when there was an anointing with oil in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit, (or Holy Spirit..can’t be so sure about captitalization when words are spoken and not seen in type) and I wanted that too, because it’s all good in the Word. I didn’t want to feel left out.
Consider this, that every Christian should be aware that there is the Father, and that means there is the Son, and that there is the holy Spirit too. We don’t need a specific verse to know that. It’s all over in the Word.
May God lead you into all he has for you, in Jesus.
Anthony,
you mention above
Since you base your beliefs regarding baptism on the practice of the apostles, you regard baptism with water as the event of “becoming a Christian”. In addition, the holy spirit is part of this baptism in water … are you witnessing the same manifestations of holy spirit with your water baptisms as we read about happening in the book of Acts? If not, what happened? Would that mean that your water baptism is not quite the same “Christian water baptism” as you claim it to be in the tradition of the apostles?
Also, you mention a 59 old baptist preacher being baptized soon in your circle of friends … are you saying that the gentlemen was not a Christian until now? Did being baptized in water previously in the baptist church (or was he not baptized in that denomination?), not effect becoming a Christian? On the other hand, if he already was a Christian, why would you recommend a water baptism now in the circle of your friends ?
Wolfgang
I’d like to see you go back and argue Anthony’s points regarding “water baptism” in post #18.
Mainly what he wrote regarding the “underlying danger of obstructing proper water baptism”.
Thanks, Wolfgang. Yes we do base our teachings on Jesus, who commanded baptism “till the end of the age” (which in all five occurrences in Matthew means the future Parousia. We all must do this to be saved (Heb. 5:9). Paul and the rest of the NT present water baptism as the public sign for joining the body of Christ. Today I do not expect the apostles to come from Jerusalem to lay hand on us, as in Acts 8! We do not have apostles of that rank today.
Yes, of course the spirit comes with believing the truth of the Gospel of the Kingdom (Eph 1:13). We are sealed with the spirit, and we make our public confession with water baptism. Does this deal with your question?
The former long-time and highly trained baptist preacher has asked us to baptize him. I did not prompt him. He realizes that it is important to be baptized into a clear view God as One, in Jesus as the Messiah and in the Gospel of the Kingdom. You can address the question to him too, later.
The important issue is obedience and Jesus’ command to baptize in water was properly carred out by Philip, Peter and Paul. The effort of some to get rid of Peter’s calling for water is amongst the bizarrest in the history of exegesis!
How do you get the spirit, Paul asked in Gal. 3? The answer is by hearing the Gospel, the report as he calls it there.
“The words I spoke to you, Jesus said, “are spirit and life” Jn 6:63).
The Devil’s major trick is to block the preaching of the KIngdom, the Gospel as Jesus preached it for us all (Mk. 1:14, 15). Paul insisted that ‘the gospel of the grace of God’ is identical with the proclamation of the Kingdom (Acts 20:24, 25)
CORRECTION: “carried out by Philip” instead of “carred“.
I suppose baptism doctrines can be a bit like marketing strategies for the gospel, like the Trinity doctrine, likely not something to get all in a big huff about.
Anthony,
In your reply to Wolfgang you said, “Yes we do base our teachings on Jesus, who commanded baptism “till the end of the age” (which in all five occurrences in Matthew means the future Parousia.”
Unfortunately, that’s where our unique unitarian Preterist friend Wolfgang disagrees with us. He believes that the end of the age came in AD 70 and that the Kingdom of God is going on right now. I’m not sure if his views on water baptism are affected by his preteristic position or not. Perhaps in future posts he will explain his stance on that.
What say you Wolfgang? Is the reason you don’t believe in water baptism because you believe Jesus’ commission to do so expired/came to an end when he supposedly returned in AD 70??
Ron S.
I believe Wolfgang is an ex-Way person as well. That may have something to do with it.
Anyone else agree with Wolfgang on water baptism?
Ron, thanks. I have to say that preterism is to me a savage attack on the Gospel of the Kingdom. It makes the inauguration of the Kingdom worldwide, and the resurrection of the saints to immortality a complete non-event!
When Jesus comes (visibly and publicly, as he will), the dead will rise and will be glorified, and will rule with Messiah on the renewed earth. This is the Gospel hope, and it is undermined by the “over-realized” eschatology of Preterism. It would be, I think, the greatest irony to say that the ruin of Jerusalem in AD 70 was really the return of Jesus to begin his Kingdom worldwide. Acts 3:21 is a brilliant text which can hold us all tight and safe: “Heaven has to retain Jesus until the promised restoration,” not the destructioin and ruin of Israel in AD 70!
The problems for some go back to Dan. 9 where 9:26b has been obscured in some translations (the Hebrew is very clear). The “bad guy” in the prophecy comes to “his end” in the events described. This is quite untrue of AD 70. Jesus’ Olivet discourse, based on Daniel, knows of one GT Tribulation, and it is just before the future coming in glory.
If one makes the GT Tribulation begin in AD 70, then one is stuck with a now 2000 year long (twice the millennium!) Gt Trib! Read Matt. 24 and we see that the GT Trib is a short burst of agony, “days in which it will be hard for pregnant women.” Do we not all know that this is not descriptive of a 2000 year period?!
Jesus will come back “immediately” after the cosmic signs which follow the Gt Tribulation (24:29).
Jesus phrase “end of the age” (all 5 times) is Matthew’s and Jesus’ technical term for the time when Jesus comes back. We are commanded to baptize in water until that time comes.
I think “huffing” about obedience is not unimportant!
If Jesus says “go and baptize and teach” ought we not to agree to do this? After all, does not Heb 5:9 say that salvation is all about obeying Jesus (so also many verses and Jn 3:36).
Anthony,
No, you rather try and evade my questions … or are you really unaware of what is mentioned regarding the spirit in connection with baptism in the records in the book of Acts? do we not read about certain manifestations of the spirit being linked with baptism, such as speaking in tongues and such as prophecy which were visible evidence in the lives of those who had been baptized?
Thus, I repost my questions from above, perhaps you can take each one and answer them this time around?
“In addition, the holy spirit is part of this baptism in water … are you witnessing the same manifestations of holy spirit with your water baptisms as we read about happening in the book of Acts? If not, what happened? Would that mean that your water baptism is not quite the same “Christian water baptism” as you claim it to be in the tradition of the apostles?”
Ron S.,
that would be one important reason and aspect … and I don’t think that anyone else here is proposing that water baptism should be carried out beyond the coming of the Lord, yes?
Furthermore, it seems to me from comparing the scripture in Mt 28 and the scriptures in Acts and the spistles, that Jesus’ may not even have commanded to water baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost trinity in the first place … In addition, whom was Jesus commanding, and why do Christians take one part (to water baptize) and gladly apply that to themselves while not quite as gladly apply the first part of “go to all nations”, but rather stay “at home” and leave that to the apostles (or nowadays to certain “missionaries”)?
Anthony,
when people either have no objective answers to a matter, they usually turn to a subjective defamation tactic on the person … such as you do here.
Did you not read my reply above to Xavier and his post with a quote from V.P. Wierwille (founder of The Way Int’l)? In it I even mention that I did not agree with the statement made by him representing Way doctrine …
The real sad part here is that you in essence and principle do the very same thing in your interpretation of the scriptures relating to the kingdom and the coming of the Lord as you accuse others of doing regarding the scriptures relating to God and Jesus when they try to prove their trinity doctrine … They ignore some rather very simple truths, like “god is one”, “the man Christ Jesus”, etc. and come up with “but, this scripture {ta ta ta ta ta }…”, you don’t seem to like some rather simply truths like “kingdom is NOT of this world”, “coming SOON”, etc. and come up with “but, this means {ta ta ta ta ta } …”
As long as someone does not recognize that there is a dilemma with their doctrine, they will see no need to re-evaluate and change as needed …
I know, I have taken years to realize that there was a dilemma between my previous trinity position and the Scriptures, and along the same vein, I have taken years to realize that there was a dilemma between my previous “futurist” position about the coming of the Lord and the Scriptures.
Anthony,
I wonder who makes the GT tribulation begin in AD70 ? Indeed, that would make it quite a long (twice the millennium) GT tribulation …
Now, how is it that you recognize this as a time problem, yet you seem to have no problem at all having Jesus already “waiting at the door” for 2000 years (twice the millenniums) — cp. what was written in Jam 5:9 in the 1st century AD, “Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” ?
The writer of Hebrews wrote in the 1st century AD (Heb 10:37) “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.”… and yet, you teach that he has been tarrying for 2000 years (twice the millennium) and counting, and you see no problem with such a teaching?
I am sure you will have some more or less fancy theological seeming “solutions” for this dilemma because you will want to keep up your theology regarding an earthly kingdom, with Jesus as a political ruler of the world from a world capital Jerusalem, etc … just as trinitarian theologians come up with fancy theological interpretations of the word “one” and other stuff in order to keep up their “3 person trinity Godhead” …
Anthony,
Which preterist view does that? Certainly not any of the few of which I am aware …
Would it not be a far more devious and savage attack on the gospel of the kingdom if it were twisted into being about an earthly political kingdom in a yet undetermined and unknown future leaving people hoping and hoping and hoping … when in reality, it is of a different nature and people could be living in the real kingdom realities now, rather than waiting and hoping for a never coming reality??
Wolfgang
I’d like to see you go back and argue Anthony’s points regarding “water baptism” in post #18.
Mainly what he wrote regarding the “underlying danger of obstructing proper water baptism”.
Wolfgang
If you think there is a “Kingdom” the likes of which the Bible describes right now, you can keep it.
I’ll stick to the REAL Christian hope of a restoration of the whole of creation and the immortal state it will bring.
Xavier,
I suppose you are referring to the following part of Anthony Buzzard’s post?
Did Peter in Acts 11:17 even really repeat his own conviction that water baptism was essential part of the conversion process? What was/is that part of the conversion process which water baptism supposedly has? Were those folks in Cornelius’ house not converted yet? or only partly converted? Had they received the spirit prior to being converted, or at least while this essential part of the conversion process (water baptism) was still missing?
Prof Buzzard claims, that Peter states (in Acts 11:17) that he dared not obstructing water baptism of the converts … but is this what Acts 11:17 records Peter stating?
Acts 11:15-17 (KJV)
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 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.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
What word of the Lord did Peter remember when he saw that the converts had received holy spirit when they heard and believed what he had been teaching? He remembered what we can read in Acts 11:16, which shows Peter making reference to Jesus’ words as recorded in Acts 1:5ff. Peter recalled Jesus’ words that it had been John the baptizer (!) who had baptized with water, “BUT ye shall be baptized with holy spirit” …
Had Jesus said that “ye shall continue John’s baptism with water, and ye shall then be baptized with holy spirit”? No! Had Jesus said that “ye shall baptize with a Christian water baptism, and ye shall then be baptized with holy spirit”? No! Notice, the only 2 baptisms Jesus mentioned were “John’s baptism with water” and “ye shall be baptized with holy spirit”. Furthermore, Jesus contrasts the two (cp. the “but ye”) and does not say that John’s water baptism was to continue and the baptism with holy spirit would be something happening invisibly “in the background/on the inside”
Now, what had Peter witnessed at Cornelius’ house? He had heard the converts speak in tongues, in other words, he had witnessed that they had experienced the “ye shall be baptized with holy spirit” part of which he then remembered Jesus having spoken.
The 2 records in Acts 10 (narrative of the actual incident) and the one in Acts 11 (recall of the incident) obviously do not provide all details of what happened there at the house of Cornelius, but each only tell some of the story. The question to ask here is, at what time in the narrative did Peter remember those words which the Lord had spoken shortly before his ascension? Did Peter remember them prior to what is recorded in Acts 10:47,48 (Peter asking the rhetorical question “can any forbid water …” and the “and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord”)? or did Peter remember those words of the Lord after what is recorded in Acts 10:48?
From Acts 11:15-17 it seems to me that the point that caused Peter to remember Jesus’ words was witnessing the converts speaking in tongues, which Peter then connected to the words of the Lord about “ye shall be baptized with holy spirit”.
But perhaps most important for correctly understanding what happened is the fact that neither in Acts 10, nor in Acts 11, it is recorded that the converts were actually baptized in water! Nowhere in these passages are we told that they were baptized in water or that Peter’s command was actually carried out. But we are told (when putting together what the records do state) that the words of the Lord about “ye shall be baptized with holy spirit” had come to pass in the lives of those converts.
I would refrain from such type of claim … because as anyone can see, the 2 records provide some basis for Peter possibly being initially unsure and then remembering that the new covenant context of the Lord’s words had been “ye shall be baptized with holy spirit” and NOT “John baptized with water”.
Wolfgang,
Thank you for answering my earlier question. I apologize for my delay in replying. I have been at the COGAF Teen camp called FUEL in Indiana, USA, and just now had time to log on.
You may have wondered at my question. I refer you to Matthew 21:23-27, when the chief priests and the elders of the Pharisees challenged Jesus’ teaching. Usually a well aimed question will get at the heart of the matter, more quickly than not (as it appears to be your style as well). You see, anyone who challenges the teaching of water baptism and wants to argue about whether it should be required, is usually because they have not and do not want to make that decision to obey Christ. My husband settles the argument very easily by saying, “If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.”
As for answering your question:”If so, Angela. have you gone to all nations preaching and teaching them?” I would answer, “Not ALL…yet” but surprisingly, a GREAT many of them, praise God! I have a personal website that shows me how many nations have logged on to read my blog and which article, and I have lost count how many. I would say, the majority, but there are a few obscure ones yet…. amazing, and almost hard to believe, but very true, I assure you. But I don’t think Jesus’ words were aimed at one person individually. We are to be one body in Christ Jesus, and perhaps, not alone can we achieve such lofty goals, but together, as one, we can. With man, this is impossible, but with God, it is possible. As Matthew 24:14 states, “This good news of the Kingdom will be proclaimed in all the world as a testimony to all nations. And then the end will come.”
Wolfgang, my suggestion is that you quit debating it, and just do it.
As for your 2nd question about in whose name we baptism, for the forgiveness of sins and with Acts it states Jesus, v. 3 names, appearing as if it’s an inconsistency or the disciples just chose one of the names? I’m guessing one of the great Bible scholars on this site can answer your questions, if they haven’t already in the above 46 comments… I am no Bible scholar and never have claimed to be. I am just someone who has a heart to obey the words of Jesus with all my heart. I wish you all the best, Wolfgang.
By reading Acts 11:16, I take it that Peter’s remembering such words was not an accident, but rather is there in Acts 11:6 as an example of how the Lord brings things to our rememberance by the holy Spirit.
I also make a connection with the speaking in tongues for the first time, with being baptized with the holy Spirit.
I suppose it’s like being covered in water in the sense that our clothing is different being wet than it was being dry, though water by itself can be so clear that it can seem invisible.
I suppose our being covered by the holy Spirit is something like that.
About the kingdom of heaven, wasn’t it in effect at the time of Isaiah’s writing? Wasn’t it expanding in his day also? (see the word “henceforth” in Isaiah 9:7 KJV)
Now, wasn’t David’s throne in heaven? I know his throne was here upon this earth, but wasn’t it in heaven also, when he was in the Spirit of God?
For anyone interested…
http://godskingdomfirst.org/Baptism.htm
Apart from the Baptizer in the NT, how do we know baptism in water was a Jewish practice? Since [as far as I know] there is not evidence of this in the OT [apart from ritual purification via water].
Anyone?
Xavier,
The ritual purification you mentioned is the only baptism in water that was part of the OT Law. The baptism in water introduced by John was something new.
From the above mentioned article:
Though I can’t prove from the scripture that baptism didn’t start until John, it seems to me that I have heard it that way. It does seem right to me also.
It seems to me that John did so by being told to do so by the holy Spirit. It just seems to me that such would be the case with John.
I’m sure he knew it was the will of God for him to do so.
Mark C.
Thanx Mark.
BTW why do you use the KJV? I find it so awkward and atiquated a version.
I am entirely in agreement with Angela and the whole of bibliclal commentary for 2000 years! It is really a tragic waste of time, even to have to hash over this easy subject of water baptism.
We either obey Jesus and his command that we baptize till the end of the age, or we don’t. The biblical practice is entirely clear and there is no need for argument. Better to get on with obedience!
The worldwide Kingdom of God begins with the 1000 year reign of Jesus and the saints, and the prophets, especially Dan. 7, predict this in clear language. The saints are being groomed now for royal office. Satan is going to be bound when Jesus returns.
The refusal of obedience to Jesus eventually takes its toll in confusion. The hunger for plain and easy instruction on the issue of God, Kingdom, Jesus and the practice of baptism and Lord’s supper, is very great “out there.” We can bring conviction and certainty to many, and this is happening.
What I see as a danger is an “island mentality,” originatiing in a fierce sense of independence. This is a personality thing, and is often traceable to attachment to leaders who have turned out to be wicked men. They made huge claims and thoroughly overestimated their ability to correct what had actually been well understood by the majority. An example: Jesus was raised on Sunday and crucified on Friday, but certain groups gained a following with a “wow” approach which fooled the unwary! May adventists never lose their straightforward understanding of the future one coming of Jesus to establish the Kingdom in a renewed earth.
Xavier,
I only used KJV on my website, as the site is geared to ex-followers of The Way and that’s what they used. It was mainly for the sake of familiarity. I mainly use NASB these days.
Mark C.
How long were you in the Way? And what you led you to this understanding of “water baptism”? Who/Where were you baptized?
I was in The Way for almost 20 years, and then another 10 years with various offshoot groups. It was in one of those offshoots (in Syracuse, NY) that I first learned about the gospel of the Kingdom, and was introduced to Anthony’s writings. The leader of that group still believed that water baptism was unnecessary, though.
When that group started getting into an elitist mentality, and stressed separating from anyone who did not “hold the truth” (i.e., agree with the leader), I wrote him a letter saying I didn’t think that was a Biblical attitude. I was told I was no longer welcome to fellowship with them.
As a result, I started studying on my own, and among the things I studied was baptism. (I wrote a lengthy study about it, which can be downloaded from my site, and it’s also on Anthony’s.) Finally I took action on what I had learned, and was baptized at the 2006 Theological Conference, by Dale Swartz and Dustin Smith.
Mark C.
Who?
Xavier,
Gary Gudlin.
hi everybody,
so now, what would you have to say if I told you I just got water baptized by being immersed in water and someone spoke some words about baptize you in the name of Jesus over me?
Would I all of a sudden now be “a saved Christian” while before you considered me to be a rank unbeliever (since I was not water baptized and did not conform to some or many of your theological views) or perhaps a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” as some of you may even have thought but did not dare to put such in writing?
Wolfgang
Neither. Its about something the scriptures call obedience of faith! Period.
Lastly, whose “a saved Christian” anyway when scripture does not talk in those terms? For example, the Bible does not say, “us who have been saved.” The text says, “us who are being saved” or “those who are being saved” [sozomenois].
Xavier,
In msg. #45 you asked, “Apart from the Baptizer in the NT, how do we know baptism in water was a Jewish practice? …Anyone?”
The Essenes were members of an ascetic Jewish sect of the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD. Most of them lived on the western shore of the Dead Sea. From what I understand the Essenes practiced a form of baptism, as an initiation, after new recruits had completed several years of study and preparation.
Many scholars have theorized that John the Baptist was either related to the Essenes or may actually have been an Essene. They were both ascetic Jews who practiced water baptism and lived in the dessert. Unfortunately none of their writings, which describe their exact beliefs and practices, have survived. Although it is believed by many scholars that the Dead Sea Scrolls were probably written by the Essenes or a group associated with the Essenes.
The Essenes had deliberately separated themselves from the Pharisees and Sadducees and had no connection whatsoever to the temple and it’s rituals. From what I understand they were a relatively small group with only about 4 thousand members. But, from what I understand they did practice a form of water baptism that predates John the Baptist…
DT
Thanx.
The simple answer is that it was a new Jewish practice, based in part on “ritual washing/immersion”, pioneered by the Baptizer in the NT.
Also from my baptism study:
Mark C.
Why keep bringing this up then? Have read it on a couple of other “Christian” sites regarding water baptism. It clearly does not advance this topic.
Anthony,
why do you question another’s willingness to obey Jesus and his commands when the matter is really NOT even about willingness to obey Jesus or not?
As for me, I don’t read that Jesus commanded US that “WE BAPTIZE …. ” Furthermore, Jesus did explain to the apostles that John HAD baptized with water, and that “ye shall be baptized with holy spirit” …
Now, from the book of Acts, we see (cp. Acts 10-11, which you brought up as an example on which you base your doctrine for required Christian water baptism) that believers were baptized with holy spirit as shown forth by the evidence of them speaking in tongues …. is such happening when you in your circle of friends baptize people in water? if not, why not? is your “Christian water baptism” no longer accompanied by baptism with holy spirit as we read in Acts?
In reply to your comment in post 18 and interpretation on Acts 10-11 I wrote a somewhat detailed exegesis and comment on these passages upon request of Xavier, and I had expected that you as a professor for biblical studies would comment on the matter, instead you ignore my comments which question your interpretation and come up with a “let’s be obedient to Jesus” harping along the same tune as before …
I am all in favor of obedience of faith and say “Yes, let’s obey Jesus !” … but let’s first be correct about what and whom Jesus commanded!
I mentioned it in response to Doubting Thomas’s comment about the Essenes practicing baptism. It also establishes that the baptism of John was not based on other practices but was ordained of God.
Angela,
why are you unwilling to answer when asked or challenged concerning your understanding and conviction regarding a biblical topic such as water baptism?
See my earlier reply to Anthony, who joined in on your above tune and assumptions that I am not willing to be obedient to Christ … I am very willing to obey Christ, but I am NOT willing to be obedient to what someone claims and or wants to command and purports to be a commandment of Christ.
Yes, I am with your husband on “If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me”!!
Now concerning water baptism, you (and others propounding that practice as a Christian “must”) indicated in your article that water baptism is linked to repentance, remission of sin and salvation, yes?
So then, since your husband apparently understands Christ to have been water baptized (a water baptism related to repentance, remission of sin, etc.) … perhaps he can explain to us why Christ needed to repent or what he needed to repent of and why Jesus would have needed remission of sin or needed to be saved ?
I would say it should be obvious to all of us that Christ needed no such water baptism at all, and thus what happened at the Jordan with Jesus and John the baptizer could NOT even have been a water baptism in the same sense as water baptism for believers is understood! Those wanting to link this event as an example for us to follow in their attempt to emphasize their demand for water baptism, ought to first understand correctly what happened there … because most certainly, Jesus did NOT receive a water baptism by John for the remission of sins !!
What we do learn from the records about the so-called “baptism of Jesus” is that Jesus was anointed with holy spirit at that time … perhaps some knowledgeable folks here can understand what the “washing in water” then was about, considering carefully what did happen (the anointing with holy spirit)
Mark C.
There is no evidence for either right? Pharisaic or Essene. In history class you are taught to back up all claims with primary or secondary evidence. Thus far I have not found either.
On the issue of baptism, some of the conversation proceeds as though no one has worked on this for the past 2000 years of Bible reading and explanation! There is not a soul professional commentator who ever said that Peter said he made a mistake after baptizing in water! Honestly the point is frivolous. And its source is not to be taken seriously, ie Wierwille.
That is why the clear matter of baptizing in water stands.
It is the influence of Wierwille (hardly a good one) at work which has interfered to cause a disagreement, which ought not to be.
There is no evidence at all that everyone spoke in tongues when baptized! Paul contradicts that flat.
There is a solid anabaptist tradition among unitarians that baptism in water is commanded by Jesus. Not much more needs to be said. A tradition so well based need not be disturbed.
Forgive my stupid typo! I meant not a sole……
I think the Bible tells us that those who were baptized with the holy Spirit did speak in tongues at times, while some who were baptized with water did not receive the holy Spirit, and hence, did not at that time speak in tongues.
Anthony,
why are you not properly and directly addressing points asked of you in a post in your answer posts? one could almost get the impression that professors always answer another person’s questions with a general “preaching” instead of getting to those points about which they were asked?
In my exegesis of Acts 10-11 in my post above, I was not making reference to any professional commentator nor to an influence of V.P. Wierwille … You, however, show yourself apparently only able to on one side go by what professional commentators over the last 2000 years have said and on the other side refute other person’s understandings which don’t agree with you by throwing them into what you deem a “sectarian guru’s pot” … Why do you deem it necessary to attack the other person in such a manner rather than addressing the topics and textual facts set forth by the other person?
Are you unable to involve yourself in an exchange about a biblical topic on your own merits (rather than professional commentators’ merits) and address someone’s comments about a scripture passage by your own personal study of the text ?
Your approach – especially in light of your status as professor and your reputation as a writer – is becoming more and more disappointing
Some badly needed context on this topic from the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels article on “Baptism”:
Another excerpt from Repent and Be Baptized:
Wolfgang, I exhort you to read the whole study, as it demonstrates exactly how the words baptism and baptize are used in the Bible, and what is actually meant.
Wolfgang,
The apostle Peter says in 1 Peter 21-22;
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (22) who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
I think it is clear that Peter is talking about water baptism here. He says, “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” I really don’t understand why anyone would not want to be baptized if they have the opportunity to be baptized. There are many Christians in different places around the world, where Christians are persecuted, that don’t have the opportunity and would love to have the opportunity to get baptized…
Now that I read a reading of I Peter 3:21-22 which is different than I am used to, I begin to wonder if Peter was referring to the baptism of the holy Spirit rather than a baptism of water.
Isn’t it the holy Spirit’s baptism that gives us both an answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of the dead (for as long as we were in the flesh we were dead in tresspasses and sins, but now we live in the Spirit through the resurrection of Christ, seeing how we rose with him into newness of life by the Spirit of God) and also as an appeal to God for a good conscience, as the holy Spirit makes intercession for us according to the will of God?
Mark, I believe what you are saying in #70 is correct. It also seems to me (as well as you also) that as Peter began to speak the gospel of Christ, his death and his resurrection, and saw the gift of the holy Spirit given unto the Gentiles as he and the others also received on that day of Pentecost, he remembered how the Lord had said that they would be baptized with the Holy Ghost. (Acts 11:16)
The natural result of all this, was that water baptism should be made available to the Gentiles also, and I assume that they did receive baptism in water, something Peter must have often done as he was with Jesus while the disciples were baptizing even at the same time that John was baptizing.
DT,
why should a Christian want to be baptized if it is a not needed ritual in order to become a Christian? your comment sounds as if it was some “extra” event if one has an opportunity but certainly not needed in order to become a Christian? usually, as you can see from above comments, water baptism is regarded as something mandatory and needed in order to become a Christian, a (sacramental?) ritual needed in order to receive or become eligible for salvation …
Wolfgang
If you agree with the dictum, ‘if its good enough for Jesus’ why don’t you just do it?
This is really getting tedious now. Just like your preterism.
Mark C.,
from the study you quoted:
could you perhaps point me to the section in the scriptures where we read about Peter and the other apostles partaking in Christian water baptism ?
Peter states what he thought and what he remembered when he saw holy spirit manifested at the house of Cornelius … and yes, he did thereby see that Gentiles were in fact partaking of the same baptism in which he and the other apostles had partaken in, albeit that baptism was NOT a water baptism but baptism with holy spirit … exactly as the Lord Jesus had said!
I read about some of the apostles having initially been followers of John the baptist and thus most likely had been baptized with the baptism of John. But is that the same as or identical to what folks here mean with “Christian” water baptism (water baptism ritual by which one becomes a Christian)? Over the years I have heard many folks from different Christian circles being rather adamant about making a clear distinction between two different water baptisms (the baptism of John & Christian water baptism) …
You then write:
Be assured that I have read all places where the words baptism, baptized, etc. are used in the NT scriptures and have evaluated from the various contexts how they are used in the Bible and what is actually meant!
Now, it seems that I have read passages in the Scriptures where “baptized” and “baptism” rather clearly are NOT meant to be an “immersion in water” where you and others read the same words and “read” water, just because you see the word “baptized”.
Xavier,
because Jesus did NOT do it … or are telling us that Jesus needed to be baptized in water in order to receive remission of sins or become a Christian?
http://www.cogcast.org/uploads/2/9/5/9/2959190/isbaptismnecessary.mp3 ~ a radio broadcast teaching by Z.B. Duncan.
Wolfgang,
You asked, “Why should a Christian want to be baptized if it is a not needed ritual in order to become a Christian?”
I don’t believe that it is a needed ritual in order to obtain salvation. But, I am one of the few Christians that believes that non-Christians (Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc…) can attain salvation if God’s law is written on their hearts and they lead a life that is pleasing to God. Of course I know that the vast majority of Christians would disagree with me on this.
I believe baptism is an outward symbol that reflects the fact that we have repented and changed our ways. It demonstrates that we are no longer living our lives in the same sinful ways as we have in the past. It symbolizes that our sins and our old ways have been washed away and that we are now living our lives to the glory and honor of God. Our one and only “true” Father and creator.
I don’t believe that God will condemn you just because you are not baptized. But like I said, “I really don’t understand why anyone would not want to be baptized if they have the opportunity to be baptized.” It’s like, why wouldn’t someone want to be member of a larger body of Christians if they had the opportunity to join such a body of like minded Christians???
There is no Biblical Unitarian church anywhere near where I live. I do attend church occasionally, especially at Christmas and Easter, but I don’t belong to any church precisely because there isn’t a body of like minded Christians in the area where I live. I usually go to church with my best friend who is a non-conformist Roman Catholic, but when they start asking for dead people to pray for them (like Athanasius, etc…) I get very frustrated and don’t feel like I belong.
I don’t feel like I am with a larger body of like minded Christians. That’s why I consider K.R. to be my virtual church. I feel like this is indeed a larger body of like minded Christians that I can learn from, and share my thoughts with. I do realize that some of my beliefs are unorthodox, but no-one on this site ever condemns me or insults me. They will simply point out why they don’t agree with me on this or that point, or whatever.
I don’t understand why when Xavier asked you, “‘if its good enough for Jesus why don’t you just do it?” That you responded with, “because Jesus did NOT do it …” It seems to me that you are just being argumentative. Clearly Y’shua needed to be baptized before he could begin his ministry. Look at what Y’shua said in Matthew 3:13-15;
“Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. (14) John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ (15) But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented.” (ESV).
It is fitting for us “all” to try to fulfill all righteousness. Of course I am just a layman, and not a teacher, but this is just how I see it from my humble perspective…
I wonder if Christians ever ask, “Why should I want to speak in tongues if it’s not a needed ritual in order to become a Christian?”
Looking at the order of events in Acts 2 concerning the Church, we can see that they questioned, they mocked, (Acts 2:12,13) they heard the gospel, they repented, they were baptized, they received the holy Spirit, they were added to the Church, they continued in the Word, and in prayer, they believed together, they shared together, had joy together, and praised God together.
That seems to be the natural order of things.
Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus, and nothing in those chapters says that it was not carried out.
BTW, it is correct that there are two baptisms in water mentioned in the Bible. There is a definite distinction made between John’s baptism and baptism in the name of Jesus, which if you examine the records is a baptism in water. Baptism in the holy spirit is a third baptism mentioned in the NT, one which only Jesus is said to do, and is only one of several different ways of referring to receiving the holy spirit.
Once again you demonstrate an unwillingness to even examine the point of view you adamantly argue against. It is therefore (once again) a waste of time to try to discuss this with you.
Mark C.,
I had asked you in an earlier post
You answered my question with the following
Did you not understand my question? I had asked you to point out a scripture where we can read that Peter and the apostles were water baptized with the Christian water baptism …
Your “answer” above does not even address my question … but since you made the above statement, were you trying to say that in Acts 2 Peter also commanded the apostles to be baptized in the name of Jesus? You should notice that Peter was not addressing the apostles when he made the statement to which you refer there !!
DT.,
you wrote above
Perhaps it will help you understand why I wrote what I wrote when I reiterate that Jesus did NOT receive John’s baptism of repentance … I would think that all here will agree to that, or is there someone who believes that Jesus was in need of repenting of some sins and therefore came to John to be baptized in water to receive remission of sin?
Yes, Jesus required what is translated in just about all Bibles with “baptism”, causing many Christians to have a incorrect understanding of what took place there, because they often use this “baptism” in their explanations about “water baptism” and explain it as being an example which Jesus was giving for us to follow,etc … Yet, the truth is that what John and Jesus did there had NOTHING to do with John’s baptism of repentance nor with a so-called “Christian water baptism for remission of sin”, for the very simple reason that Jesus did NOT need any such baptism in the first place since he had not sinned!!! Obviously then, this “washing” that took place in Jordan fulfilled some other requirement in order for Jesus to begin HIS MINISTRY (exactly as you mention above!) … which is not the reason or purpose for the water baptism ritual for all believers, is it?
Thus, I am not trying to be just argumentative … I am trying to get people to read more carefully what the text states and to more accurately take the context into account, etc …
Wolfgang,
Oops! You’re right, I misread your question. We had been talking about Acts 10 and 11 and Peter’s observation of them receiving holy spirit and his command for them to be baptized in water. My post had presented the overall context of chapters 10 and 11, so when you quoted part of my post and mentioned Peter and the apostles and water baptism I thought you were referring to the fact that there is no specific mention of them carrying out the command in the following chapter.
To address your question of when the apostles were baptized in water, the Bible doesn’t say specifically. They may have been baptized by John, or by other disciples of Jesus. Anything more specific would be conjecture. However, there is no guesswork involved when we read of Jesus’ command to the apostles, and of the apostles carrying out his command. Nor is there any guesswork involved with the standard practice seen throughout the book of Acts as well as Paul’s epistles.
Wolfgang
See what I mean? TEDIOUS!!
Wolfgang
Can you please produce me one quotation from one commentary, at some time, affirming that Peter thought that he had made a mistake by baptizing those Gentile converts in water.
If there are none [except Wierwille] I think that no further argument is neccesary.
I’m supposing that John’s baptism covered the disciples of Jesus who went about baptizing the people who came to Christ as he preached the kingdom of heaven. (John 4:1,2)
I wonder if there were those who had been baptized by John who also were baptized in water by the disciples of Jesus, or if John’s baptism was the same thing the disciples of Jesus were doing and therefore it was considered to be the same thing.
I’m supposing if it were considered to be the same baptism, one of repentance, one baptism in water would have been enough.
I have trouble understanding someone who….say, was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, (or Holy Spirit if one prefers) and then later in life decided it to be important to be baptized again in the name of Jesus, or in Jesus’ name, or in the name of Jesus Christ.
I wonder why the need for another baptism, unless such a one was at first baptized into a particular doctrine, religious discipline, or theological persuasion, rather than into Christ, or felt that he had been baptized into a particular doctrine, religious discipline, or theological persuasion, rather than into Christ himself.
I consider that every Christian should know that there is such a thing as the Father God who has a Son named Jesus whom we have read of in the gospels of our Bibles, and that we all are aware that there is such a thing as the holy Spirit, or Holy Spirit, if you prefer.
I suppose one being baptized might feel that he was baptized into something he later did not wish to be a part of, such as a particular sect, denomination, cult, or whatever, rather than feeling that he had been baptized into Christ.
Is it that sometimes people feel that they have been used by others for religious purposes, or agendas of others, that are not necessarily the purposes of God?
Maybe I shouldn’t think such a thing to be so strange because I had been anointed with oil on the forehead in the name of Jesus Christ, and in Jesus’ name, and when I saw an anointing of oil in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I got in line because I wanted that also…..except in my case, there was something in additon to Christ’s name alone, and I wanted it all.
Or, is my case no different than the situation of baptism I spoke of here in this post?
There was a time when I thought that if I wanted a baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, that a pastor ought to do so for me, simply using the name of Christ, without the words, the Father and the Holy Spirit, since it would be my baptism and I believed I had seen from the Bible, from the book of Acts, that people seemed to have been baptized in that particular manner, and I didn’t see anything wrong with asking for a baptism in that manner, seeing how it looked to me like that’s the way it was likely done back in the time spoken of in the book of Acts, and I even considered asking a pastor to do a baptism in that manner for me.
Now, I feel no need to ask for such a thing, though if I were to be baptized in water again, (for I was baptized as a baby) I would likely want the words “In the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit” (or Holy Spirit if one prefers, or Holy Ghost even, as it says in the KJV), because of what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19, but I think that if I wanted it done, that I should want it to be done by someone who was serious about the things of God, and serving Christ, as a servant of God should do.
Mark C.
And your point is? To distance the “Christian” baptism from the Jewish process of immersion by water?
I think that it is obvious that baptism was a practice which came from the Hebrew tevilah of the day. The definition of tevilah: full body immersion in a mikvah, is the biblical act of immersing oneself in a natural water source, ritual washing in water. The processes are too similar to say otherwise for certain.
It was the spiritual application that changed, in which I would agree with you. Of course with a Messiah ushered onto the scene, a rather HUGE ordeal, the application of baptism can now also be done as a sign of faith for those that are the body of Messiah.
Not so much to distance it but to demonstrate that John’s baptism was something new and different, not derived from the Mosaic Law. Often those who deny baptism claim that water baptism was done away with, along with other elements of the Old Covenant.
Please reread comment #46.
Wolfgang,
I apologize for saying that I thought you were just being argumentative. You are quite correct that Y’shua didn’t need to repent of his sin and his sinful nature before his baptism. There must have been a different reason why God required Y’shua to undergo John’s water baptism. This would seem to imply that there might be additional reasons to get baptized other then the ones I mentioned above in Msg. #79. This will require some thought and prayer on my part.
You are correct that it is rather odd that there is no mention of the Apostles themselves being baptized in water. This will also require some thought and prayer on my part. Thank-you for sharing your thoughts with us and God Bless…
Hi,
a test to perhaps find the reason why – for some strange reason – I am not able to post here again … similar technical problem as a few days ago … getting a “500 internal server error” message …
I’ve tried to post a reply to one of Anthony’s posts, but strangely am unable to post it … the server of the blog reports a “500 internal server error” each time I am trying to post. Have forwarded the message to Sean Finnegan, hopefully he as a moderator can post it for me and also figure out why that post is causing the server to break down.
Wolfgang,
Sean did an upgrade to a newer version of Word Press around the end of June and since then Joseph and I have also had problems trying to post longer posts on to the K.R. site. We received the same internal server error message that you got. Sean tried some updates but it didn’t seem to work. I find I can’t paste my messages from another forum (like my hotmail account).
I find if you type your message directly on to K.R. it seems to work as long as your message isn’t too long. I once typed a very long message directly on to K.R. and I got the same “internal server error”. I don’t know very much about computers, but I think it might be a problem with the Word Press software. I used to copy and paste messages all the time, but that was before the software update. Hopefully the problem will get fixed with the next software update…
I believe this may have to do with the posting problem… http://wordpress.org/news/2011/07/wordpress-3-2-1/
There is a new WordPress update out since the 12th of this month. It came out shortly after v3.2.0 because some were experiencing server issues.
Mark C, you said in comment #46…
Take for example…
2Ki 5:14 Then went he down , and dipped (Heb. teval, Greek. bapti,zw) himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
Harris, el als, 787.0 טבל (taval) I, dip, plunge. (ASV and RSV similar.)
The verb conveys the immersion of one item into another: bread in vinegar, feet in water, a coat in blood. baptœ is the common LXX rendering of this root.
Liddel-Scott Lexicon, 7655 bapti,zw
bapti,zw, f. Att. iw/, to dip in or under water; metaph., bebaptisme,noi soaked in wine, Plat.; ovflh,masi beb. over head and ears in debt, Plut.
2. to baptize, tina, N.T.:-Pass., bapti,zesqai eivj meta,noian( eivj a;fesin a`martiw/n Ib.:-Med. to get oneself baptized, Ib. Hence ba,ptisma
As shown by the notes above of the Hebrew word טבל, the verb can convey a immersion of one item into another (man dipping man another man into water), which also supports that this process may have not been so foreign prior to John the Baptist. I argue that the application/purpose changed with the coming of Messiah into the World as ushered in my John the Baptist.
BTW, anyone know how to have Greek to be able to copy and past in this blog? Am I missing fonts?
Wolfgang,
I’ve been thinking and praying about what we were talking about. The first thing that comes to mind is that the bible is not a history book. It doesn’t tell us many things, like the details of how the early Christian church spread to Egypt and other parts of the world. It really isn’t that surprising that it doesn’t tell us the details about how or when Peter and the apostles were baptized.
So even though the baptism of the apostles was not described we do not that that Peter and the apostles prescribed baptism to others. I think it is just common sense that they wouldn’t prescribe baptism to others if they hadn’t undergone a similar baptism themselves. Just because the bible doesn’t specifically describe it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
As for your other question, why would God have wanted Y’shua to undergo John’s baptism, since like you pointed out Y’shua was without sin, and therefore had nothing to repent of. Robert thinks that because of the corruption in the temple, that making a temple sacrifice could no longer be adequate as a sin offering, and a new way of repenting (being forgiven for our sins) was now necessary.
Therefore Y’shua was just establishing a new prescribed method that would ultimately replace the temple sin offering and make that sin offering null and void for future generations of Christians. This does seem to make a lot of sense to me. It has been interesting listening to your ideas though. Your questions have definitely made me do a lot of thinking, which I think is a good thing.
I hope you have a great night and God Bless…
Yes, the word can mean that, just as baptizo in Greek can have either meaning. But my point was that the ceremonial washings in the OT Law were about washing parts or objects, not immersing oneself. The example in II Kings 5:14 was not baptism or ritual prescribed by the Law.
The third difference is possibly the biggest: they were rituals that were repeated periodically, whereas John’s baptism was a one time event that marked a change in one’s life. And as I mentioned, the Pharisees recognized it as something new and different, and not part of the Law; otherwise they would have been observing it.
Furthermore, John baptized Jews only. In difference to Jewish proselyte baptism.
DT,
which “similar or same” baptism was it which Peter had undergone and which he saw at Cornelius’ house and which caused him to remember which words of the lord Jesus? was it the water baptism of John, which he most likely had undergone as a disciple of John before he even had met Jesus for the first time? was it the baptism with holy spirit which Jesus had spoken of in those words which Peter remembered?
While there are most definitely many things that did happen which are not recorded in the Scriptures, I would say that those of importance to man in order to live righteously before God are recorded.
IF a “Christian” water baptism (which is regarded as something different from John’s water baptism !! … as someone else explained above as well) was so important and an important part in becoming a member of the body of Christ, a true follower of Christ, etc. … I would certainly deem it appropriate that the scriptures would record it about the apostles, who were the first ones to receive baptism with the holy spirit at the day of Pentecost. IF – as Anthony claimed above – “Christian” water baptism involves being immersed in water and the receiving of holy spirit, when and where were the apostles water baptized at Pentecost either prior to, or at the same time as, or even after they were baptized by the Lord himself with holy spirit?
Hi,
as for “to baptize” meaning “immersing fully in water”, it seems that some posts above already indicate that “to baptize” does NOT necessarily have to mean “fully immersed” in water … but rather could also have the more general sense of what we today would perhaps translate as “to wash in”, which would then in the case of a water baptism be a rite or ritual “washing”, rather than for the purpose of a literal “washing in order to clean”.
As I mentioned before somewhere, in the record about the eunuch who was water baptized by Philip, even in those days many of those rivers in that area were not even deep enough to “fully immerse” a person in water. Even in the records about John “washing” Jesus in Jordan as part of the requirements prescribed in the OT Law in connection with initiation and consecration for the office of “high priest”, it is more likely that Jesus was not “dunked completely under water” (“fully immersed in water”), but rather that they perhaps stepped a short distance away from the shore into the river and John then used the water from the river to perform the “ritual washing” required by the Law and thus they fulfilled all righteousness in connection with what was needed for Jesus to begin his public ministry.
As I have mentioned previously as well, this event was definitely NOT what is called in Scripture “the baptism of John” which John administered to those seeking remession of sin.
Anthony,
you write above
does the number of commentaries agreeing on a particular understanding now establish what the true understanding of a passage is? If that be the case, trinity adherents would be correct with their “3 person Godhead” view since there are definitely more commentaries out there which agree on a trinity perspective of certain verses and passages …
As for Wierwille, as far as I remember from reading in his books, he was not of the opinion that Peter baptized those Gentiles in water … thus, how could Wierwille then — as you put it — have commented “that Peter thought he made a mistake by baptizing those Gentile converts in water” ?
Once again, you seem to rather quickly be ready to condemn someone else with whom you do not agree and you do not even have the facts concerning their beliefs correct (see above) … I say once again, because I remember the same from an incident some time ago when you harped on a certain belief of the Christadelphian and where you also apparently did not understand their position correctly either
Instead of relying on commentaries, why don’t you examine what I wrote in an earlier post about my textual considerations and my subsequent understanding of the passages in Acts 10-11 since I challenged the claims you made concerning Acts 10-11 ?
Wolfgang,
For the record, the points you raised in your explanation of Acts 10-11 are addressed in the study I linked to, which you declined to read. In light of this, I find the above comments to Anthony highly ironic.
Mark C.,
were the points in the study of Anthony to which a link had been posted what I challenged and supported with a more detailed textual / contextual study? In my post I showed that the points made in his article were NOT in harmony with what the text and context in Acts 10-11 actually states …
Thus far, Anthony has replied only with the type of comment that relies on commentaries and attacks me as a person (his references and implications to me as a former Way / Wierwille adherent).
You making reference that he already addressed the points in my explanation is incorrect in that it does not take into account the above, that my points were questioning his understanding, and in his replies to my explanation he did NOT address what I had raised!
Wolfgang,
I did not post a link to Anthony’s study. It was a link to my own (in comments 44 & 70). Here is the link again:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/Baptism.htm
It deals with the points you make about Acts 10-11, and many others. However, you have already stated (or at least strongly implied) that you have no interest in reading what I presented (comment #76).
Also, for the record, Anthony’s comments were not attacking you as a person, but merely pointing out that no one in the history of Christendom has ever suggested that Peter was wrong to command baptism in water in Acts 10, outside of followers of The Way/V. P. Wierwille and its various offshoots. This is why such a statement has not been taken seriously outside those circles.
But that doesn’t make it right or wrong. If you genuinely want to exchange ideas on this, then read my study and discuss it. But if you just want to declare your belief and not engage in debate, then you’re wasting your time.
I suppose there are many interpretations of what baptism means though I haven’t looked it up in my dictionary.
I think we all have some general sense in what it means if it’s in water.
I heard it means to dunk, or to be dunked in water.
I think of a doughnut, how it tastes differently after it’s been dunked in coffee.
But coffee doesn’t cleanse a doughnut does it? It doesn’t give a new answer by a clear conscience to God does it?
I think a baptism if mixed with faith should cause a change in a person, that is, if God is with them in it. If it’s for his purposes and he’s there being involved in some way, there should be a change in the soul somehow or in some way, though it might not show itself right away.
If it’s a part of the Word, which it is, I suppose it takes time to produce fruit, usually. (Matt 13:3-8)
I’ve often hear about the parable of the sower who went into his field to sow, and heard it compared to people individually. What about pertaining to groups of people?
Wolfgang,
You asked, “Which “similar or same” baptism was it which Peter had undergone and which he saw at Cornelius’ house and which caused him to remember which words of the lord Jesus?”
The baptism he saw was the same baptism of the holy spirit that the apostles had received.
Acts 10:44-46; “While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. (45) And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. (46) For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God…”
But, you seem to be ignoring the next 2 verses.
“…Then Peter declared, (47) ‘Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ (48) And he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ…”
I think it stands to reason that if Peter commanded that these Gentiles be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (obviously in water as verse 47 says), then Peter and the apostles and the other believers from among the circumcised must have also been baptized (in water) in the name of Jesus Christ at some point prior to this time. I don’t think Peter would have prescribed something for the Gentiles if it wasn’t already a standard practice among the early Jewish Christians.
Of course like always this is just my own humble opinion…
If John’s baptism and the work the disciples of Christ were doing as they baptized by the instuctions of Christ, were the same baptism, one of repentance as preparation for receiving the kingdom of heaven, I’m thinking that maybe John’s baptism was all they needed as far as water baptism is concerned.
Some were baptized by John and he told them, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” and there they went, to follow Jesus.
I wonder if all the 12 had been baptized by John.
Wolfgang
Thanks. The Trinity is not promoted in many, many commentaries, especially modern ones. There are masses of liberal scholars who agree that the Trinity is not in the Bible.
There is not a soul, that I can think of who treated Acts 10, 11 as Wierwille did, Wierwille who wrote some ridiculous things about “what the Greek said.”
The obedience of water baptism is one of those easy doctrines which most have no difficulty with.
Wierwille’s attempt to deal with Acts 11 is supported by no one in commentary I suggest.
So it is the fantastic idea that only Wierwille understood Acts 11 against everyone else for 2000 years which I challenge. Perhaps you can show otherwise.
Peer review and community are important in theology.
The church need not be divided or trouble in any way over the easy matter of the public action of getting baptized as in Acst 8:12.
Anthony
Anthony,
but it IS divided … and more so among those denominations within the Church who actually do propagate and practice some form of water baptism than with those who do understand the water baptism of John to have been replaced with baptism with holy spirit as Jesus proclaimed to his disciples shortly before he was taken up (cp Acts 1:5ff)
Anthony, how many different views and doctrines are there on water baptism? How many water baptism adherents even insist that an already water baptized person be re-water baptized among their friends because somehow the previous water baptism was not sufficient, not correct, not according to who-knows-what, etc … ?
Some folks at least are honest enough to state that it is basically no more than the entrance ritual into their denomination, and if someone is a “convert” from some other denomination he/she needs to therefore be re-baptized or else could not be regarded to be a legitimate member of their denomination.
So then, how do you suggest that those different water baptizers come to the point of not being divided over water baptism ?
Wolfgang
The unitarian, Gospel of the Kingdom people, were not divided at all. Even those from the earliest Reformation. All believed in believer’s baptism in water.
There is no division in the unitarian adventist camp from the 1850s on this point.
The issue of rebaptism is quite different, and people will choose as they will since there is no direct parallel with the BIble (there were not 30000 denominations in Paul’s time).
My objection is that no one has ever imagined what you say about Peter in Acts 11. Peter commanded baptism to be done and he commanded it in the name of Jesus.
Jesus had commanded it to the end of the age in the Gt Commission.
This is not the slightest bit difficult.
Plain scripture should produce a desirable unity!
There are quite other agendas at work in those who say otherwise (conscious or unconscious)
Anthony
Wolfgang,
Your questions about the various doctrines on baptism are also covered in my study. It’s a pity you have chosen to close your mind about it. Not because I’m any great writer or theologian, but I was indoctrinated with the same views you proclaim, yet I later spent several years researching the subject. I found a wealth of evidence that VPW never even mentioned, let alone refuted. Why not give it a fair chance, and if you disagree with something we can discuss it? But to simply refuse to consider it seems rather closed minded to me.
I notice that Acts 11:15 tells me that the time when Peter recalled how John baptized with water, but that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost, was not after he spoke the gospel to the Gentiles, but was as he began to speak.
Peter then must have remembered what the Lord had said about how John baptized and about how Jesus would do it with the Holy Ghost, at the beginning of his message to the Gentiles, and sure enough, they received the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues and all.
So, who can forbid water? God did not withhold the gift of the Holy Ghost did he?
That’s what it looks like to me.
I noticed that Peter said the Holy Ghost fell on them as it did on Peter and the others on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 11:15)
It came as the gospel was being preached.
I wonder if God will pour out his Spirit without a class on the holy Spirit, but simply by pouring it out as he has sometimes in the past.
If so, I wonder if it would be because those who have received the gift are not yet able to teach others also, or to minister the same as they have received or what.
I still believe God will pour out the gift of the Spirit if people are gathered in the name of Jesus in order to receive it, and the teaching / preaching of the gospel.
When I read of the pouring out of the Spirit and the baptizing of people with it, I think of how water might be poured out from heaven and get everyone soaking wet, but this is not water in the literal sense.
I wonder if it’s that we haven’t got our doctrine together as we should, or if we haven’t reached the higher ground the Lord might require or what?
I think there’s more we should be doing than simply waiting for the Lord to pour something out of his Spirit again.
the Spirit baptism is for everyone:)
(Acts 2:38 KJV) “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.”
(Acts 2:39 KJV) “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
Wolfgang,
Whew…thank heavens we have come to some pause with the last discussion. I have put it in the lager.
What I find is another important subject which suddenly is captivating so many who are “over steering” and become like a 4 tak ventile eccentric.
From you post #11,
“Now, it seems that folks proposing that “water baptism” has something to do with making for a “clear conscience”, etc. seem be somehow view their act of getting into water and some words spoken by another believer/pastor/minister as a sacramental or perhaps mystical action (as seen in various religions’ baptismal initiation rites, or also as in the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations which view a “baptism” as the rite of initiation into their group)”
This has effect of being/becoming viral IMHO.
John the Baptist and Jesus’ disciples baptized, pre Pentecost, and baptized with water to repentance. Jesus never baptized anyone before Pentecost. He endowed the disciples with supernatural spiritual powers to cast out evil spirit while healing.
Water is made up of 2 elements—H2O and was used to wash the bloody sacrificial instruments and the bloody hands of the priest…with a significance of sins being washed away. baptizo(bapto) means dipping and washing pots and pans.
Only Jesus can baptize with *holy spirit* WHICH is from another dimension.
There was even a movement in England to abolish immersion by law! Accordingly, in an effort to cover up the true meaning of the original word, the term is left obscured in a “Greekish” form.
Does this new doctrine mean that one has to be immersion baptized to be Kingdom Ready?
Wolfgang please continue.
Timothy
Anthony Buzzard,
Having already watched at least 4 videos where you discuss the gentiles baptism in acts,
You are not being proper with your explanations.
First, here you write(111):
“My objection is that no one has ever imagined what you say about Peter in Acts 11.
Peter commanded baptism to be done and he commanded it in the name of Jesus.”
Now try to read Acts 11: 15–18 again, and very slowly without any jabbering.
A very elated Peter comes to exclaim his joy that the gentiles received holy spirit into manifestations, speaking in tongues, by just hearing GODs word spoken.
Romans 10: (kjv)
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Acts 11: (kjv)
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
These members of Cornelius’ household and Cornelius himself spoke in tongues as they were baptized with holy spirit.
16 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.
This does not say that Peter commanded anyone, here in Acts 11, to be baptized with water, because Jesus said “you absolutely will be baptized with holy spirit”
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Since GOD had, by Jesus Christ, given holy spirit by hearing of his word spoken, through Peter, to Cornelius and his household. And Peter and the Jopa saints knew this because they heard the manifestation of speaking in tongues which magnified GOD.
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
The point is that with holy spirit, and not water, comes the spirit of truth gift. And speaking in tongues is the proof one has received their gift.
You and your cohort swished over the Acts 11 testimony of peter with out even understanding what Peter was saying at his critique.
Do you now teach that there are two Baptism?
Timothy
Anthony,
You are just dodging my earlier question … you know as well as anyone that there are about as many differences among those Christian groups who claim water baptism as essential for salvation as there are groups … form dipper to immerser to sacrament proponents to just outward witness proposers …
Sure, all believe in a person’s baptism in water … they all just have different doctrines about the function of water baptism,, the necessity of water baptism for salvation, the question if water baptism is a sacrament or not, the particular words that must or need not be used, the manner in which the water baptism be performed, etc …. And .. guess what? .. they all claim that their doctrines are what the Bible teaches … just as you do.
So then, Anthony, which of the many water baptism doctrines and practices is to be preferred, if any?
Anthony,
since Jesus did address his apostles in
Anthony,
since Jesus did address the topic of baptism to his apostles in Acts 1, what did Jesus teach his apostles with those words?
Acts 1:5 (KJV)
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Did Jesus say
“For John truly baptized ONLY with water; but ye shall be baptized WITH WATER AND with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” ?
Anthony,
why does it seem such a strange idea to you that John’s baptism with water was followed “not many days” after Jesus addressed his apostles by holy spirit baptism … especially since you have Jesus’ words for it ?! Is Jesus not reliable?
Since Jesus was using John and his baptism as point of comparison, it should be clear that what Jesus was saying did not only apply to those apostles to whom he was directly speaking … because John was baptizing not just the apostles but all who came to him with a desire to repent ( or did John only baptize those apostles?) Thus if the one baptism (of John with water) applied to more than just the apostles, the other (the one Jesus said would follow a few days later) would also apply to more than just the apostles
Anthoney Buzzard
also from #111 you have written:
“There are quite other agendas at work in those who say otherwise (conscious or unconscious)
Anthony”
What is your conscious or unconscious hidden agenda?
Timothy