951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

All who profess to be followers of Christ are directly confronted with the practice of baptism. It was recorded in the Gospel of Matthew as a directive of Jesus, in his last parting command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). However, the time of upheaval that occurred during the formation of the early church led to an evolution of methods and beliefs concerning baptism. As a result, there is a good deal of confusion in the church today concerning the significance of this practice and how exactly it should be carried out. This matter deserves attention because the biblical practice of baptism is related to the issue of eternal salvation, so straying from the truth of the Bible could be costly. Though the traditions and beliefs regarding the practice of baptism evolved greatly in the centuries that followed the events of the New Testament, the only tradition that is of any value to a true follower of Christ is that which is found solely in the records contained in the Bible.

Baptism in the New Testament was a simple affair that involved a complete immersion in water. The word baptism comes from the Greek word, baptizo, which means “to immerse,” “to cleanse by dipping or submerging,” or even “to overwhelm.”[1] The first recorded baptisms were immersions performed by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. As suggested by his title, John’s baptism involved being submerged in water – also evidenced by the fact that the people he baptized were recorded as “coming up out of the water”(Mark 1:10). Later, in the book of Acts, Phillip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch as he rode along in his chariot. After receiving the gospel joyfully, “he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38). Once again, it is clear that this baptism was by immersion, for the Bible records that they “went down into the water” and “came up out of the water” (Acts 8:38, 39)

Baptism, as recorded in the Bible, was performed for the forgiveness of sins after a person repented and believed the gospel message. To prepare the way for Jesus, John the Baptist went about crying “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt 3:2). People responded to his call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom by “being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins” (Matt 3:6). However, John’s baptism was not a complete baptism; it was “a preparation for another baptism, baptism with the Holy Spirit.”[2] From the book of Acts, it is clear that the baptism with the Holy Spirit was quite similar to that of John’s baptism, for both required a response of repentance to the message of the kingdom and resulted in forgiveness. Acts 2:38 records Peter’s response to the crowd who had been “pierced to the heart” by his gospel presentation: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:37-38). Acts 8:12 demonstrates that the additional component of the gospel necessary for baptism was belief in “the name of Jesus Christ,” which would include his Messiahship, atoning death, and resurrection.[3] It can be seen from these texts, that Christian baptism was a response to repentance and belief in the gospel message, and involved receiving forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

During the second and third centuries, the practice of immersion began to give way to other forms of baptism, including pouring or sprinkling with water. The first mention of an alternative to the practice of immersion is mentioned in the Didache, written between AD 120 – 150, which gives the following instructions concerning baptism:

“Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”[4]

Later, a church dignitary from Carthage named Cyprian (ca. A.D. 200-258) defends the practice of sprinkling in cases of illness, writing:

“You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought of those who obtain God’s grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with saving water…In the sacrament of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows his mercy, the divine methods confer whole benefits on believers; nor ought it to trouble anyone that sick people seemed to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord’s grace.”[5]

It can be seen from these writings, that some Christians of the second century were willing to make changes in the tradition set forth by the Scriptures. They made concessions in regard to the biblical practice of immersion, for matters of convenience and physical necessity.

In response to explosive church growth, changes also occurred in baptismal preparations. Those who desired entrance into the church were interrogated about their both professions and their sins. Only “those judged worthy “to hear the word” became catechumens, and for as long as three years they were instructed and exorcised, and their behavior was observed.”[6] Following the probationary period, catechumens were eligible to be baptized and receive a full membership into the church. Hippolytus describes the baptismal ceremony which he considered to be “apostolic,” in his book Apostolic Tradition, written around AD 215.[7] His account mentioned a three-day preparation for candidates that included bathing, fasting, exorcism, and an all-night vigil devoted to scripture reading and religious instruction.[8] On the day of baptism, the catechumens were immersed three times in water after answering a trio of questions based on the Apostle’s Creed.[9] The ceremony concluded with each “neophyte” (“newborn Christian”) being clothed in a white garment and led into the church for a final anointing and their first reception of the Eucharist.[10] Hippolytus’ account demonstrates that by the third century, baptism had become a highly complex and symbolic ceremony administered after only an extensive period of preparation.

Another major development in the baptismal tradition began to unfold in the second and third centuries. As a result of the elaborate baptismal preparations and ceremonies, “an almost magical aura began to be associated with baptism, resulting finally in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (power in the water itself).”[11] This doctrine, combined with questions regarding original sin, gave way to the practice of paedobaptism, in order to ensure an infant’s salvation. There was much controversy over this practice and in the second century Tertullian argued against it in his work, De baptismo, saying, “Why should innocent infancy come with haste to the remission of sins?”[12] However, within thirty years of his publication, two influential theologians Hippolytus and Origen wrote that infant baptism was an acceptable practice, and derived its origin and authority from the apostles.[13] The practice of infant baptism became a firmly entrenched norm in the fifth century, when Augustine of Hippo popularized the doctrine of original sin.[14] As a result, adult baptisms became increasingly rarer and the elaborate system of pre-baptismal instruction was naturally replaced by post-baptismal instruction.

Today in the church there is much division over when a person is eligible to be baptized, how the baptism should be carried out, and the even significance of the practice. In the Roman Catholic Church, both adult and infant baptisms are performed by “immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”[15] According to the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church,

“Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord’s will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism… The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ…Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.”[16]

Thus it becomes apparent that the Roman Catholic Church believes baptism in itself is a salvific sacrament, an unmerited gift that imparts the recipient with the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sin, new life in Christ, and membership into the church. As a result, infant baptisms are by far the most common practice, for it is believed that “delaying baptism until a child can understand the sacrament may put the child’s salvation in danger, should he die unbaptized.”[17] This understanding of baptism as a salvific sacrament is shared by the many mainline Protestant Churches that share a common heritage with the Roman Catholic Church.

Many other denominations hold that baptism is a symbol, rather than a sacrament, and therefore not necessary for salvation. Those in the Baptist denomination fall into this category. According Articles XXXIX and XL of the First London Confession by Baptists in 1644,

“That Baptisme is an Ordinance of the new Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed onely upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized…The way and manner of the dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water….” [18]

The baptism symbolizes the believer’s forgiveness and new life through Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. It is believed that faith alone saves, and as a result “Baptists unanimously assert that baptism, church membership, the Lord’s Supper and good works, while important, are never necessary for salvation; only grace through faith is sufficient.”[19] Thus for the Baptists and the many other denominations who hold similar views, baptism is an important symbolic response to a person’s saving faith and are an outward expression of the inward reality that has already taken place.

Clearly, the church has strayed from the simple tradition set forth in the Bible. Biblical baptism was simple. It was a single immersion in water following a person’s repentance and belief in the gospel of the kingdom and the name of Jesus. Never in the biblical record is there mention of elaborate ceremonies or alternative methods of baptism, like pouring or sprinkling, as there were in the second and third centuries. A person was baptized in the name of Jesus, or the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as Jesus commanded, for the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19, Acts 2:38). Since it is a biblical command of Jesus, and one must obey Jesus to inherit eternal life, baptism is in fact necessary for salvation for all who are able (Luke 23:42-43, Heb 5:9, John 3:36). However, it is not the mere act itself which imparts salvation, for there are instances in the Bible of a person receiving the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, after their repentance and profession of belief (Acts 10:44-48). Thus, the practice of infant baptism for salvation is completely unsupported by Scripture. Therefore, it is essential to return to the biblical understanding of baptism, lest one be misled and lulled into a false assurance of salvation. The Bible is clear: salvation does not come by works or sacraments, but rather by grace through the obedience of faith. If one desires to follow and obey Jesus, one must be baptized.

————————————————

[1] Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance: New American Standard Bible. Updated ed. La Habra: Lockman Foundation, 1995. http://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/strongs-exhaustive-concordance/ (accessed March 20, 2013).

[2] Bridge, Donald, and David Phypers. The Water that Divides: The Baptism Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977, p 17.

[3] Roberts-Donaldson. “Didache.” Early Christian Writings. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html (accessed March 20, 2013).

[4] Jackson, Wayne. “A History of the Baptism Apostasy.” Christian Courier. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1540-a-history-of-the-baptism-apostasy (accessed March 20, 2013).

[5] Lynch, Joseph H. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010,  p 115.

[6] Edgecomb, Kevin P. “The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome.” http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html (accessed March 27, 2013).

[7] Lynch, Joseph H. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, p 115.

[8] Bridge, Donald, and David Phypers. The Water that Divides: The Baptism Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977, p 78.

[9] Ibid

[10] Jackson, Wayne. “A History of the Baptism Apostasy.” Christian Courier. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1540-a-history-of-the-baptism-apostasy (accessed March 20, 2013).

[11] Tertullian, De baptismo, XVIII. 19 – 34.

[12] Bridge, Donald, and David Phypers. The Water that Divides: The Baptism Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977, p 75.

[13] Ibid, 82

[14] “Part Two: The Celebration of the Christian Mystery.” Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm (accessed March 29,

[15] Ibid

[16] Richert, Scott P. “The Sacrament of Baptism .” About.Com: Catholicism. http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm (accessed March 29, 2013).

[17] “Baptists: Believer’s Baptism.” Baptist Distinctives. http://www.baptistdistinctives.org/wpassets/article8_4_18_05.pdf (accessed March 30, 2013).

[18] “Baptists: Salvation by Grace through Faith.” Baptist Distinctives. http://www.baptistdistinctives.org/wpassets/article6_3_21_05.pdf (accessed March 30, 2013).

97 Responses to “The Evolution of Baptism in the Church (NT – 5th Century)”

  1. on 19 Apr 2013 at 3:07 pmWolfgang

    Hi

    Baptism in the New Testament was a simple affair that involved a complete immersion in water. The word baptism comes from the Greek word, baptizo, which means “to immerse,” “to cleanse by dipping or submerging,” or even “to overwhelm.”[1]

    “involved a complete immersion” ? claims who? the definitions given for the word itself leave various options, among them options other than immersion! I would think that context would determine which shade of meaning is utilized

    The first recorded baptisms were immersions performed by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. As suggested by his title, John’s baptism involved being submerged in water – also evidenced by the fact that the people he baptized were recorded as “coming up out of the water”(Mark 1:10). Later, in the book of Acts, Phillip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch as he rode along in his chariot. After receiving the gospel joyfully, “he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38). Once again, it is clear that this baptism was by immersion, for the Bible records that they “went down into the water” and “came up out of the water” (Acts 8:38, 39)

    None of these records actually say anything about “a complete immersion”!! To claim that “going into the water” and “come up out of the water” is clear indication for a complete immersion is nothing more than an assumption, and one which seems to not take into consideration what the rivers mentioned in those areas most likely looked like …

    Did you ever go into the water at a river side or perhaps at an ocean beach? Did you after wards come up out of the water at a river side or an ocean beach? Now, I suppose that if you did, you were totally immersed in the river or the ocean? or was that perhaps not the case when you went into the water and came back out of the water?

    Now, who in the world came up with the idea that “going into the water” and “coming out of the water” CLEARLY means “complete immersion” ???

  2. on 19 Apr 2013 at 3:15 pmWolfgang

    Hi

    another question: Who do you think immersed women in biblical times? All works about biblical days and culture agrees I’ve ever read agree that men did not touch women in public (some even claim that not even husbands would do so with their wives) in a manner which we see nowadays when people in Christian groups carry out their immersion baptisms in water … !! So then, do you really think that a preacher even could carry out the immersion baptism of a woman in a river or a lake ?

  3. on 19 Apr 2013 at 5:20 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Since water baptism was for remission of sins just as animal sacrifices were for ,since the head of the family could make this offering I dont see a problem and not sure a married woman or a daughter would be required. Maybe an adult unmarried would have to do this.

  4. on 19 Apr 2013 at 9:33 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    It’s still water. 😉

  5. on 20 Apr 2013 at 12:55 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    really? I did not know that the river Jordan was a still water …. had learned in school that it was running water …

    Aside from that, you just seem to constantly miss every point anyone makes …

  6. on 20 Apr 2013 at 11:11 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    I like you too.

  7. on 21 Apr 2013 at 2:11 amWolfgang

    Hi
    a further thought on your “complete immersion” ideas and your “proof text” from Acts 8 about Philip and the eunuch

    Later, in the book of Acts, Phillip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch as he rode along in his chariot. After receiving the gospel joyfully, “he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38). Once again, it is clear that this baptism was by immersion, for the Bible records that they “went down into the water” and “came up out of the water” (Acts 8:38, 39)

    Since the text clearly says that THEY (that is, the one baptizing and the one being baptized, and not just the one being baptized) “went down into the water” and “came up out of the water”, it would seem that according to your understanding of these expressions in this record is that BOTH the one baptizing and the one being baptized are “completely immersed” ??!
    Perhaps Prof. Buzzard (who also has propagated that “complete immersion” is the biblical method of water baptism) can explain why “going into the water” and “coming up out of the water” only means in one case but not the other “complete immersion”?

  8. on 21 Apr 2013 at 8:32 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Let me try again: Do you NOW agree that baptism involves WATER though? It seems your disagreeing on the METHOD only.

  9. on 21 Apr 2013 at 2:57 pmAnthony

    Wolfgang

    I will make no argument other than the patent fact that water is involved in baptism.

  10. on 22 Apr 2013 at 12:53 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Let me try again: Do you NOW agree that baptism involves WATER though? It seems your disagreeing on the METHOD only.

    I agree with what I can read about baptism in the Scriptures and the clear statements regarding baptism from both John the baptist and Jesus …

    Mt 3:11
    11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

    Acts 1:5
    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

    John baptized with water, he who would come after him would baptize with holy spirit.

    Now, did the one John said who would come after him already come or are we still living in the age of John’s water baptism?
    Is Acts 1:5 perhaps a forgery and should read “John truly baptized with water but ye shall baptize others with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost not many days hence” ?

  11. on 22 Apr 2013 at 1:25 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    I will make no argument other than the patent fact that water is involved in baptism.

    certainly, water was involved in John’s baptism ….

  12. on 22 Apr 2013 at 8:30 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    So there’s no water involved in Acts 8?

  13. on 22 Apr 2013 at 8:45 amXavier

    FYI: even Wierwielle admitted that there is water baptism in the Book of Acts, although he sees it as somehow part of Torah[?!!]:

    The one question left is “Why do they continue water baptism in the book of Acts after the day of Pentecost?” The Word of God says in Acts 21:20 because “they were zealous for the law.”…That’s exactly why they continued water after the day of Pentecost, on a few occasions, till they finally got to the greatness of the revelation and then there’s no listing of water in the book of Acts.

  14. on 22 Apr 2013 at 11:48 amWolfgang

    Xavier,
    why are you so fixated on Wierwille? Is it because you want to distract from the (former) affiliation of your father in law with a different cult/sect?

    As I have mentioned before, I am not basing what I believe on Wierwille or Buzzard or anyone else … rather I take personal responsibility for what I believe and I provide arguments from Scripture as I understand them … instead of arguing with supposed “patent facts”

  15. on 22 Apr 2013 at 3:59 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Okay, so there’s no water involved in Acts 8?

  16. on 24 Apr 2013 at 7:27 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Okay, so there’s no water involved in Acts 8?

    Acts 1:5 and Mt 3,11 are being examined … which of the two baptisms mentioned there by John and by Jesus involves water and which involves spirit? furthermore, which baptism came first and was replaced by which baptism?

  17. on 24 Apr 2013 at 7:55 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    We’re “examining” Acts 8 based on your criticisms of Beth’s article. Now I’ll ask you again, is water involved yes or no?

  18. on 24 Apr 2013 at 9:58 amWolfgang

    Xavier,
    I was and am NOT “examining” Acts 8 … I have commented and asked questions about Acts 1:5 and Mt 3:11 and (as usual?) I am still waiting for someone simply answering the questions I asked about those two verses

  19. on 24 Apr 2013 at 12:23 pmJas

    Xavier
    Wolfgang already made it clear water was used in Acts 8 but was disputing total immersion .
    Wolfgang
    Iam not sure if anyone is disputing there is also a spiritual cleasing also after pentecost for those baptized in their faith. As i have mentioned before I see water baptism as a sign of entering a Covenant by faith in that it is washing away past sins or as an act of presenting oneself a virgin .I also see other sources for faith such as prayers. Btw what God did Cornelius pray to ?

  20. on 24 Apr 2013 at 1:33 pmXavier

    Jas

    Were did Wolfgang answer my question?

  21. on 24 Apr 2013 at 1:36 pmJas

    Xavier
    Wolfgang answered the question before you even ask it. Reread post 1

  22. on 24 Apr 2013 at 2:30 pmJas

    Xavier
    Let me give you my observation on Wolfgang’s claim.
    1. Water baptism was valid before pentecost.
    2. Baptism by fire repalced it after pentecost.
    3.Peter and the rest were ignorant of this change for over 3 years .
    4.During those 3 years none of the events of people receivihg the Holy Spirit reminded them of Jesus’ Words.
    5. Peter did not carry out water baptism on the group in Acts 10 or anytime after that because he interprets recount to mean they did not.
    The only thing I am unclear of is does he believe the Holy Spirit can not come upon someone before or after water baptism. Could it somehow block or cancel it out?

  23. on 24 Apr 2013 at 3:42 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    Wolfgang already made it clear water was used in Acts 8 but was disputing total immersion .

    indeed … so then, what are the answers to my questions regarding the supposed “total immersion” method of water baptism?

  24. on 24 Apr 2013 at 3:46 pmWolfgang

    in addition to the “total immersion” claim, I also brought up the important point of what John the baptist and Jesus had to say about baptism with water and baptism with spirit .

    Mt 3:11
    11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

    Acts 1:5
    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

    Now, did the one John said who would come after him already come or are we still living in the age of John’s water baptism?
    Is Acts 1:5 perhaps a forgery and should read “John truly baptized with water but ye shall baptize others with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost not many days hence” ?
    Why are people insisting on water baptism IF the baptism with holy spirit — as taught by John the baptist and by Jesus as well — did in fact come and replace John’s baptism with water?

  25. on 24 Apr 2013 at 4:00 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    I have no idea whether full immersion is required or not but when I get baptized it will be by full immersion. If was performed by Peter Once after pentecost then it was still valid in the process.
    Nowhere does it state to the exclusion of the other so where do you get one has to replace the other. Maybe being baptized with the Holy Spirit is just figuratively speaking of the Holy Spirit reasting upon someone.
    Now why dont you enlighten me on whether water baptism voids or prevents the Holy Spirit coming upon someone?

  26. on 24 Apr 2013 at 4:10 pmXavier

    Jas

    Wolfgang’s first post does not discount the fact that water is present in Acts 8. What he criticizes is Beth’s “immersion” argument. Which to be fair was a legitimate point he made.

    So I’ll assume from his first posts that Wolfgang agrees that water is present post-Pentecost.

  27. on 25 Apr 2013 at 12:41 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    Nowhere does it state to the exclusion of the other so where do you get one has to replace the other.

    Mt 3:11 and Acts 1:5 are rather clear on it …. for neither states anything about John’s water baptism continuing and a baptism with holy spirit being added to it. Both John and Jesus make contrasts between “with water” and “with spirit …”

    Now why dont you enlighten me on whether water baptism voids or prevents the Holy Spirit coming upon someone?

    After baptism with holy spirit by the one who was to come after John became reality, baptism with water is irrelevant … certainly, someone who has repented and believe in Christ has been baptized by him with holy spirit, whether or not that person then subjects himself to a water baptism by a preacher doesn’t change anything …

  28. on 25 Apr 2013 at 8:17 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Neither of those verses state that according to those that heard it said or they would not have still been water baptizing after pentecost. So should I follow your thought or theirs??
    So if you feel it does not void or prevent why is it you want people to stop doing it?

  29. on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:31 amWolfgang

    Jas

    So if you feel it does not void or prevent why is it you want people to stop doing it?

    anyone can go about as many times as they want to into whatever water they desire … fully immersed, half immersed, sprinkled over the head or any other way … BUT if they follow some false teaching about the supposed importance or utmost necessity of water baptism in order to be a true believer in Christ, they are mistaken and perhaps believe to be or to have something with God and man which they don’t because it has nothing whatever to do with water baptism

  30. on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:41 amJas

    Wolfgang
    So by your assumption the Apostles and disciples performed and taught a false teaching for 3 years after pentecost?

  31. on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:45 amWolfgang

    Jas

    why would the apostles have taught a false teaching for 3 years after Pentecost? I don’t read about such a false teaching in Acts … I hear interpretations of what I read in Acts which seem not in accordance with what John and Jesus taught

  32. on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:51 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Did not Peter command people to be baptized in water even if as you say he didnt follow through and would that not be a false teaching if he followed through?
    Do you deny the Apostles baptized with water after pentecost?

  33. on 25 Apr 2013 at 10:12 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    at one occasion, quite extra-ordinary as well, seeing that it involved Gentiles for the first time, Peter – as it seems due to excitement and astonishment at what was happening – forgot what the Lord had told them and did command water baptism … However, as Peter himself states, he then did remember (thus obviously, he had previously not remembered or forgotten) what the lord had said about water baptism and spirit baptism … and since the narrative nowhere states that Peter’s command was carried out, it seems that he remembered rather soon after he had issued the command and the command was never carried out (for it was totally unnecessary for those folks who already had been baptized by the Lord with spirit to undergo a water baptism.

  34. on 25 Apr 2013 at 10:18 amJas

    Wolfgang
    So you are saying the Apostles only thought it was necessary for gentiles after pentecost?
    why wasnt this figured out earlier if what you say about those 2 verses is clear?

  35. on 25 Apr 2013 at 10:23 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Was the enuch not a gentile?

  36. on 25 Apr 2013 at 11:22 amJas

    Wolfgang
    While you are figuring out if the enuch was a gentile explain to me just who was the Samaritans that were also baptized in the name of Jesus by Philip ?

  37. on 25 Apr 2013 at 12:59 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    So you are saying the Apostles only thought it was necessary for gentiles after pentecost?

    no … I am saying that the incident of the first Gentiles becoming members of the body of Christ was rather astonishing and extra-ordinary for Peter …(context makes that rather clear, starting from the unusual revelation Peter was given to even get going to the house of Cornelius) As I have already mentioned, Peter did NOT subject the course of Cornelius to water baptism, even though at first – while he did not remember what Jesus had said – he had commanded a water baptism which however was not – because he did remember what the lord had said – carried out.

    why wasnt this figured out earlier if what you say about those 2 verses is clear?

    I do not know why people reading the records somehow do not see this … most likely it has to do with being pre-occupied with “WATER baptism” due to their own experience and church teachings etc …

  38. on 25 Apr 2013 at 1:00 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    Was the enuch not a gentile?

    Being a eunuch from Ethiopia he most likely was initially a Gentile, but seeing that he had gone to Jerusalem for seemingly religious reasons, it seems to me that he was a proselyte to Judaism, which is supported further by the fact that he was reading the OT Scriptures

  39. on 25 Apr 2013 at 1:09 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    First is this was not first incident where gentiles received the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans received it at the laying on of hands by Peter unless you are claiming they were of Israel which Jesus himself makes it clear they Were Not.

    “I do not know why people reading the records somehow do not see this … most likely it has to do with being pre-occupied with “WATER baptism” due to their own experience and church teachings etc …

    Of course you ignore the context of my question because you can not answer it.

  40. on 25 Apr 2013 at 1:18 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    Of course you ignore the context of my question because you can not answer it.

    ??? to which context of which question are you making reference?

  41. on 25 Apr 2013 at 1:18 pmJas

    “Being a eunuch from Ethiopia he most likely was initially a Gentile, but seeing that he had gone to Jerusalem for seemingly religious reasons, it seems to me that he was a proselyte to Judaism, which is supported further by the fact that he was reading the OT Scriptures”

    Wolfgang
    And you dont think Cornelius the centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man was not. Does it state the enuch was a proselyte, could not gentile go to the temple to worship God,was there not an area set aside just for that,could not a gentile read the prophets without being a proselyte?
    The fact is your excuse for Peter is baseless.

  42. on 25 Apr 2013 at 1:23 pmJas

    ??? to which context of which question are you making reference?

    Wolfgang
    I asked “why wasnt this figured out earlier if what you say about those 2 verses is clear?”
    You answered
    “I do not know why people reading the records somehow do not see this … most likely it has to do with being pre-occupied with “WATER baptism” due to their own experience and church teachings etc …”
    Knowing full well the context was about the Apostles not about people who read the accounts.

  43. on 26 Apr 2013 at 5:48 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    but things were ” figured out ” earlier … e.g. in the teaching of John the baptist and also in Jesus’ teaching to his apostles (cp Mt 3:11 / Acts 1:5)

    The apostles carried out what Jesus had instructed them to do … they taught and spoke those things which Jesus had taught them concerning himself, and as people believed they were baptized by the lord with holy spirit.

    The apostles did not neglect Jesus’ instruction and continued to baptize others with water (as John had done previously). The incident with Philip and the eunuch is “out of the normal” in that the eunuch desired to go into the creek and wanted to be baptized, it was not that Philip did any teaching too the eunuch about the need for a water baptism …

    In all the other accounts about anyone being baptized after Pentecost in Acts, the matter is stated in the passive voice, there is only mention that those who believed “were baptized [in the name of the Lord Jesus]” with no mention of water or any mention of a person who did the baptizing (as was the case with baptisms prior to Pentecost, where we read about John baptizing, etc.) A distinguishing matter concerning the baptism with holy spirit is the fact, that there is no human baptizer involved, only a human person who is baptized by the lord. This is indicated in Jesus’ teaching to his disciples in Acts 1:5 where he mentions that with water baptism there was someone who did the baptizing (i.e. “John baptized {notice the active voice} with water …” and with holy spirit baptism he only mentions that they would receive it (i.e. “ye shall be baptized {notice the passive voice} with holy spirit …” )

  44. on 26 Apr 2013 at 7:31 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Is water present in Acts 8?

  45. on 26 Apr 2013 at 8:16 amJas

    Wolfgang
    You are neglecting the Samaritans being baptized by Philip which did not involve the Holy Spirit which required Peter and others to come after to lay there hands upon them for the Holy Spirit to come upon them. So the enuch was NOT an isolated event nor was just his idea. He was just taught by Philip .Again this is almost 3 years after pentecost so if it was so clear why did the Apostles and disciples not understand it. Maybe if you would have been there you could have enlightened them about the things Jesus taught them personally .You could have been a super apostle to them.

  46. on 26 Apr 2013 at 8:56 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    You are neglecting the Samaritans being baptized by Philip …

    I just re-read Acts 8 again and could not find any reference to Philip baptizing the Samaritans in water …. I did read that Philip preached and that they believed and were baptized {note the passive voice}

  47. on 26 Apr 2013 at 9:02 amJas

    Wolfgang
    So what were they baptized with then?

  48. on 26 Apr 2013 at 1:03 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    What was the eunuch baptized with in Acts 8.36-39?

  49. on 26 Apr 2013 at 1:26 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    So what were they baptized with then?

    well, which baptism was to follow from Pentecost (“not many days hence”) onward upon John’s water baptism?

  50. on 26 Apr 2013 at 1:27 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    What was the eunuch baptized with in Acts 8.36-39?

    when he believed on Jesus as the Messiah, he was baptized with holy spirit … afterwards he wanted to do into the water and have Philip perform a water baptism … which was not unlawful to do, but which obviously did not change anything in regards to the eunuch’s status as a believer in Christ

  51. on 26 Apr 2013 at 1:42 pmJas

    Xavier
    Wolfgang admitted the enuch was baptized with water but according to him it was the enuchs idea alone. But he still has not answered what the Samaritans were baptized with but CLAIMED to have reread Acts 8 but more than likely just scanned for verse without reading to prevent himself from reading
    8:16 (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) which shows the Holy Spirit was not a part of their baptism but he was right that it didnot mention water so we must assume since there was no HS and no water used they must have used SAND or some new way not mentioned else where. Maybe Philip burned them with fire misleading them with a verse from Daniel . I guess there is no telling what Wolfgang may claim they were baptized with since it is clear in this passage the HS was not used and he claims water was not used. Maybe this is what Peter and John was sent to find out.

  52. on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:01 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    8:16 (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) which shows the Holy Spirit was not a part of their baptism …

    Just because there had been no outward manifestation of holy spirit, does not mean that they had not been baptized with holy spirit and had thus become members of the one body of Christ (cp the passage in 1Co 12:13 which tells you by what type of baptism believers become part/members of the body of Christ) …

    One must carefully distinguish between (a) baptism with holy spirit when holy spirit is received by the believer, and (b) manifestation of the spirit when believers made use of holy spirit within by means of the tongues, interpretations of tongues, etc ….

    If one equates “baptism with holy spirit” = “holy spirit in manifestation”, then one would have to say that many or most believers today have not received holy spirit / have not been baptized by the Lord (as was promised would take place from Pentecost onwards) and have only been baptized with water which however did not bring them holy spirit either (as some claim that water baptism now is combined with holy spirit baptism)

  53. on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:12 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    You have to be kidding , did the enuch show manifestations, does the verse even claim he received the HS?
    The Samaritans BELIEVED on Jesus as the Messiah and were baptized in the Name of Jesus yet the Holy Spirit had not come upon ANY of them. How can they have manifestations of something without it. Peter and John had to travel many days then had to pray then had to LAY HANDS on them. This is the worst reading comprehension I have seen from you so far

  54. on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:35 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    but he was right that it didnot mention water so we must assume since there was no HS and no water used they must have used SAND or some new way not mentioned else where.

    no guessing needed ….. just need to believe what both John and Jesus taught regarding baptism … John baptized with water, Jesus – who would come after John – would baptize with holy spirit. Now then, were those folks after Pentecost baptized by John or by Jesus when they believed ?

  55. on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:42 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    I wrote that being baptized with holy spirit does NOT equate to “utilizing manifestation of the spirit” …. thus, no problem for me to believe that the eunuch had been baptized with holy spirit even though there are no manifestations of the spirit mentioned as being utilized by him at the time. Same with the Samaritans …

    The expression “holy spirit “came on them” / “fell on them” describes in the context that they utilized holy spirit after Peter and John had laid hands on them etc …. but that was not the baptism with holy spirit. All believers are baptized with holy spirit by the Lord, yet not all do utilize holy spirit in manifestation …

  56. on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:44 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Sorry but I have read and studied everything you have with not even a hint of what you say or claim.

  57. on 26 Apr 2013 at 5:57 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    are you at least recognizing that there are only two baptisms spoken of in the scriptures: (a) John baptizing with water (b) Jesus baptizing with holy spirit ?

    Do you see John or Jesus mentioning other baptisms? I don’t!
    Also, prior to John, there are no other baptisms mentioned in the OT scriptures, and following Jesus baptizing with holy spirit from Pentecost onward, there are no other baptisms mentioned in the NT scriptures either.

    So then, the matter is rather simple:
    When we read about John baptizing, it’s a baptism with water and it is a baptism which was valid and fulfilled its purpose from the beginning of John’s ministry to the time when Jesus (the one who came after John, and of whom John had been speaking in Mt 3:11) began at Pentecost baptizing believers with holy spirit.

    So then, when we read after Pentecost about “were baptzed in the name of the Lord Jesus”, it is clear that this can’t be the water baptism of John, but must refer to the only other baptism available, the baptism with holy spirit performed by the lord himself.

    Example at the day of Pentecost: There was a larger crowd present in the court of the Temple.. Peter preached to them, they were touched in their heart and Peter then told them what they needed to do: Their (active) part was to repent, believe on Christ, and they would then (passively) be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

    Nowhere do we read that Peter said anything about himself or the other apostles baptizing them, nor about them needing to submit to John’s baptism with water …. Where do you think the several thousand people could be fully immersed in water at the Temple? Peter did NOT say anything like “Folks, repent and then let’s all go down to Jordan where we will then perform a baptism with water with each one of you” … or did he?

  58. on 26 Apr 2013 at 6:27 pmJas

    “are you at least recognizing that there are only two baptisms spoken of in the scriptures: (a) John baptizing with water (b) Jesus baptizing with holy spirit ? ‘

    Have always seen 2 mentioned,one literal othe figurative

    “So then, when we read after Pentecost about “were baptzed in the name of the Lord Jesus”, it is clear that this can’t be the water baptism of John”

    Actually after John Jesus instructed baptism in his name so your theory is flawed.

    “Where do you think the several thousand people could be fully immersed in water at the Temple?”

    Actually there was a very large pool there but most of these people were already water baptized in the name Jesus so again your theory fails . plus cities are built around a major water supply .

    There is absolutely nothing so far that could even make me entertain your belief . Do you have anything that doesnt take massive training to see.

  59. on 26 Apr 2013 at 10:40 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Thanks. So we agree that there is water baptism post-Pentecost.

  60. on 27 Apr 2013 at 12:56 amWolfgang

    Xavier

    Thanks. So we agree that there is water baptism post-Pentecost.

    sure … just as there were folks who brought sacrifices, kept sabbath and the rest of the OT Law to their liking … so then what do you make of those ? Is something God ordained and in line with truth just because some people practice it?
    Or is it possible that people try to be zealous for something and practice something because they are ignorant of the fact that something new has come about in the course of revelation of God’s plan? There are people who believe in the OT Scriptures and who are still waiting for the Messiah to be born … is what they believe in harmony with what the Scriptures teach because they believe so ?

  61. on 27 Apr 2013 at 1:03 amWolfgang

    Jas

    Actually after John Jesus instructed baptism in his name so your theory is flawed.

    where did Jesus instruct his apostles to baptize others in water in his name? I’ve not read any such instruction …
    Furthermore, he would be flat out contradicting what John had already taught prophetically about the baptism which would be done by the one coming after him !

    Actually there was a very large pool there but most of these people were already water baptized in the name Jesus

    “were already water baptized in the name of Jesus” ?? by whom? when? how silly then of Peter to talk about them needing to be baptized again ?

    Do you have anything that doesnt take massive training to see.

    It seems more massive “un-training” is needed to see the rather simple truth revealed in Scripture … consider what John and what Jesus taught, observe the timing sequence of the baptisms they taught, think logically and on that basis evaluate any other information related to the subject.

  62. on 27 Apr 2013 at 7:25 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    I never knew water baptism for the remission of sins was associated with anything but Christianity.

  63. on 27 Apr 2013 at 10:29 amWolfgang

    Carlos,

    I never knew water baptism for the remission of sins was associated with anything but Christianity.

    (a) so you regard John the Baptist’s ministry as part of Christianity? or did it precede Christianity ?
    (b)do you not see holy spirit baptism as being associated with Christianity, that is, as being the baptism by which believers in Jesus the Messiah become members of the body of Christ (1Co 12:13 & Acts 1:5) ?

  64. on 27 Apr 2013 at 11:06 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Jesus says that UNLESS one is born of WATER and the spirit they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

  65. on 27 Apr 2013 at 11:11 amJas

    “where did Jesus instruct his apostles to baptize others in water in his name? I’ve not read any such instruction …”

    John 4:1-2 (KJV)

    1 “When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)”

    Wolfgang
    There is a major contrast between the baptism of John and the baptism in Jesus’ name that came after .

    “were already water baptized in the name of Jesus” ?? by whom? when? how silly then of Peter to talk about them needing to be baptized again ?

    From above verse which is a historical reference by whom and when. Like I said Most were allready baptized in the name of Jesus

    “It seems more massive “un-training” is needed to see the rather simple truth revealed in Scripture”

    I rather doubt that is the case here since this is not your original revelation .

  66. on 28 Apr 2013 at 2:45 amWolfgang

    Carlos,

    Jesus says that UNLESS one is born of WATER and the spirit they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

    Yes, that’s what he said ….

    Where do you read that he said, “Unless you are BAPTIZED (fully immersed) with water and BAPTIZED with holy spirit ….” ?

  67. on 28 Apr 2013 at 2:53 amWolfgang

    Jas,
    Joh 4,1-2 does NOT say anything about Jesus instructing and commanding a baptism with water … it records that “the Pharisees HEARD that Jesus baptized and made more disciples than John …” and then even clarifies that Jesus did not baptize anyone, only his disciples … who obviously (note the context from the previous chapter) had been disciples of John and carried out John’s water baptism at that time … There was no other water baptism in effect except the one which God had ordained to be carried out with John the Baptist’s ministry.

    There is a major contrast between the baptism of John and the baptism in Jesus’ name that came after .

    Yes, there is …. the former is done with water, the other with holy spirit !

    From above verse which is a historical reference by whom and when. Like I said Most were allready baptized in the name of Jesus

    The apostles indeed had been baptized with water by John … others had been water baptized by John’s disciples … yet, please note, that had nothing to do with “being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” … or are you telling us that Peter told them what they should do and what then would be done to them at the day of Pentecost, when in reality it already had happened before?

  68. on 28 Apr 2013 at 8:04 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Where do you read that he said, “Unless you are BAPTIZED (fully immersed) with water and BAPTIZED with holy spirit ….” ?

    The verse should be read in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the NT practice of baptism. Which no one until people like Wierwielle came along to contradict.

    But again, I am not arguing the method here but the simple fact that water is present in Christian baptism. For who can PREVENT [koluo] water for people to be baptized in, even though they have already been baptized in holy spirit [Acts 10.47]? And who is anyone to think they can PREVENT [koluo] God [Acts 11.17]?!

  69. on 28 Apr 2013 at 11:12 amJas

    ” Yes, there is …. the former is done with water, the other with holy spirit !”

    Wolfgang
    Maybe you dont understand the events spoken in John were pre-pentecost . Joh 4,1-2 says Jesus baptized more disciples then John which either means they were baptized by him or in his name. If they had been baptized by John or in his name the author would no reason to contrast the 2.
    The fact is the verse does not deny Jesus baptized his disciples himself personally while his disciple baptized others in his name.
    The coming of the HS as baptism is just figurative .

  70. on 28 Apr 2013 at 11:16 amWolfgang

    Carlos,

    The verse should be read in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the NT practice of baptism.

    says who? Prof. Buzzard perhaps, whose disciple you seem to be in regards to theology ?
    I would certainly agree that any passage should be read in a manner that is consistent with the rest of Scripture … but it’s not such a good idea to take one’s particular practice, claim that it is scripture based, and then use it for coming up with one’s own interpretation.

    By the way, what is the NT practice of baptism? Is what you claim to be the NT Practice of baptism (water baptism) consistent with what both John the baptist already prophetically taught and what Jesus shortly before his ascension reiterated ? Or are you reading “water” into verses which do NOT mention any water, thereby making those verses contradict what John and Jesus clearly taught about the sequence of water baptism being carried out by John and spirit baptism replacing John’s water baptism from Pentecost onward?

    Which no one until people like Wierwielle came along to contradict.

    WOW … once again the “Wierwille” bat with which you seem to think you can just bypass scriptureal arguments …. (or was this not even your idea, but someone else’s idea whose monitoring this thread in the background and has indoctrinated you to pull out this “Wierwille” talk to distract from the plain argumentation from Scripture?
    As for your Acts 10 ideas, you make Peter contradict what Jesus taught about baptisms … I have already discussed the passages in Acts 10 & 11 in detail to show how they are consistent with the rest of Scripture

  71. on 28 Apr 2013 at 11:39 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Anyone who has studied the Wierwielle cult could see your belief and methods on baptism are Wierwielle”s training . Matter of fact your methods of twisting and ignoring you use in your perterist belief are the same you were trained to use on baptism. While I dont claim to have a complete true understanding I can safely say without a doubt yours is clearly false on baptism by several very very clear passages .

  72. on 28 Apr 2013 at 11:55 amWolfgang

    jas,

    Anyone who has studied the Wierwielle cult could see your belief and methods on baptism are Wierwielle”s training .

    WOW … I am amazed how folks who apparently were never even involved in “the Wierwille cult” seem to be such experts about it … 😉

    Perhaps John the baptist and Jesus were “Wierwille cult” members? I only relied on the two key passages in Mt 3:11 and Acts 1:5 with statements from John the baptist and from Jesus and what they taught on baptism … none of what you guys who are so opposed to my understanding based on simple reading of those passages, has really set forth in detail anything which would explain what John and Jesus taught as being different from what I have stated …

    By the way, a question: Could it be that Wierwille was perhaps right on a few things on which you guys are wrong ??? is that an impossibility? IF so, what makes you think that you are so right on this topic and others (be it Wierwille, or anyone else) so wrong ?
    (And so you or others don’t quickly jump on this paragraph and claim “See, he defends Wierwille doctrine”, I am not defending Wierwille doctrine at all … no more so, than some of you are defending Buzzard doctrine or perhaps the Pope of Rome’s doctrines, etc …)

  73. on 28 Apr 2013 at 12:08 pmJas

    Could it be that Wierwille was perhaps right on a few things on which you guys are wrong ???

    Wolfgang
    I have took the time to research his teachings and methods and yes he was close on a few things but they were not his original revelations but his belief on baptism is clearly dismissed by many clear passages which you were trained to twist or ignore.

  74. on 28 Apr 2013 at 12:19 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    so then what were John and Jesus talking about in Mt 3:11 and Acts 1:5 ? Are those not “clear passages”? How would you like to twist or ignore them?

  75. on 28 Apr 2013 at 1:01 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Yes yet we must use historical reference to understand them. When John baptized Jesus after came the first giving of the HS which dwelt with a human. This is metaphoric of the promise by God to write his Law in the hearts and minds of those that entered the renewed Covenant of Israel . So baptism in the name of the appointed John brought about the first instance of the HS dwelling in a man amongst mankind. Jesus provided a purified temple for the presence of God to dwell in through perfection in the obedience to God’s Commandments. I am not really concerned with any other understanding then of those that were personally taught by Jesus which Peter used in Commanded WATER baptism after pentecost. Lets look at Peter when he commanded water baptism in Acts 10 .if what you say about the 2 verses is so clear why did Peter not know it 3 years after pentecost? Why would Philip entertain the enuch in water baptism?
    What you are implying is Peter and Philip were retarded in not understanding which I highly doubt because they were taught by Jesus himself.
    You cant just take single verses to redifine historical events ,we must understand the sigle verses by historical events which in this case proves your understanding of the single verses False .

  76. on 28 Apr 2013 at 2:13 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    so then what about the rather clear words of John the baptist and the lord Jesus? what did they mean with what they said (since according to your above twist with employing “historical evidence” does not directly address what John and Jesus did say? in addition, your understanding of what happened in Acts 10 and Acts 8 with Peter and Philip contradicts what John and Jesus taught about baptism with water and baptism with holy spirit … so then, what did John and Jesus teach about the two forms of baptism (one with water, the other with spirit) and the sequence in which they would follow one after the other?

  77. on 28 Apr 2013 at 2:26 pmWolfgang

    Jas,
    concerning Joh 4:1-2 you commented above

    Maybe you dont understand the events spoken in John were pre-pentecost . Joh 4,1-2 says Jesus baptized more disciples then John which either means they were baptized by him or in his name. If they had been baptized by John or in his name the author would no reason to contrast the 2.
    The fact is the verse does not deny Jesus baptized his disciples himself personally while his disciple baptized others in his name.

    I understand quite well when the events in Joh 4 happened …. don’t worry. BUT you don’t seem to carefully read what the verses actually say, since you did not get the important detail even after I marked it with using caps in my quote of the verses ….
    The verses do NOT say anything about Jesus commanding a water baptism, nor about Jesus baptizing anyone with water! The point is that John says that “THE PHARISEES HEARD ….” and what they “heard” was obviously not quite correct, as the verses also indicate by clarifying that Jesus did not baptize with water! He could not have, because he was the one who came after John, and John as a prophet had declared that he who would come after him would baptize with spirit (and NOT with water)!

    Furthermore, the verses do NOT say anything about his disciples “baptizing with water IN JESUS’ NAME” … which still would have contradicted what John as a prophet had declared about Jesus NOT baptizing with water but with spirit!

    Reading the immediate context from Joh 3, it is clear which disciples of Jesus are in view and also that these disciples had been disciples of John the baptist before they started following Jesus. The water baptism carried out prior to Pentecost was John’s baptism with water … thus it should be obvious that the disciples continued in those early days of Jesus’ ministry to baptize others with John’s baptism (remember, according to John and Jesus there was no other water baptism being performed ! )

    The coming of the HS as baptism is just figurative.

    really ? which figure of speech is being used and what truth is being emphasized by that figure?

  78. on 28 Apr 2013 at 2:29 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Whatever they meant to those who personally taught by Jesus will define what they meant. It obviously did not mean to Peter and the Apostles and those personally taught by Jesus and the HS what you claim it meant or else they would have not even have mentioned water baptism much less commanded or allowed it .
    You can not take single verses to rewrite historical events or prophesied events which you do in 2 of your beliefs. What Peter understood the day after pentecost carries 100 times validity as what you claim from misunderstand 2 verses. Both your beliefs makes the apostles into retards.

  79. on 28 Apr 2013 at 4:05 pmJas

    “The point is that John says that “THE PHARISEES HEARD ….” and what they “heard” was obviously not quite correct,”

    4:1 Now when Jesus 1 knew that the Pharisees 2 had heard that he 3 was winning 4 and baptizing more disciples than John 4:2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were), 5 4:3 he left Judea and set out once more for Galilee.

    Wolfgang
    REALLY!!!
    The whole passage was about why Jesus left for Galilee . He left because the pharisees had found out he was baptizing more than John.
    Unbelievable blinded!

  80. on 28 Apr 2013 at 9:54 pmSheryl

    Woah! I’m getting whiplash reading this blog! 😉

    I enjoyed the article much, thank you Bethany. I wondered what the etiology of “Baptism” was and I’m glad you made reference to that.

    Maybe I missed this, but I’m curious as to whether baptism as a symbolic cleansing of sin was practiced in the Hebrew bible. I know sprinkling sacrificial blood was “cleansing.”

    Also, while I of course believe it is important and respectful to adhere to biblical commandments, I understand that the act of baptism is a symbol of being spiritually cleansed of sin and being born to a new life. Jesus said unless one is born of water (natural birth) and spirit (spiritual re-birth) he cannot enter the kingdom.

    If the word baptism means to cleanse or overwhelm — is the method more important that the act? I believe to be baptized is an act of humbling oneself and submitting to our king .. however it is performed.

    I’m always reminded of the sinner on the cross who professed belief in Jesus and being assured that he would be in paradise. He was not immersed or even sprinkled; though we might guess that he received a spiritual baptism when he believed.

    So after all that, what is God’s clear commandment regarding baptism? It seems there are good reasons to support water baptism as well as spiritual baptism…or both. Which leads me to conclude that God looks at our heart and how we conduct our lives rather than whether we got our hair wet at baptism, or spoke in tongues when receiving the holy spirit.

  81. on 28 Apr 2013 at 10:25 pmJas

    “Maybe I missed this, but I’m curious as to whether baptism as a symbolic cleansing of sin was practiced in the Hebrew bible. I know sprinkling sacrificial blood was “cleansing.”

    Sheryl
    NIV ©John 3:25
    An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing.

    Understanding baptism for remission (forgiveness) of sin one needs to understand the blood sacrifice and sprinkling of blood was for remission of sin. God always provides for those truly seeking Him so my guess is water baptism was the means of remission of sin during exile or a polluted Temple. Every year God required a sacrifice to renew the covenat because sin voided your part of the Agreement. Water baptism is also the means of entering a covenant relationship after you have accepted the Words of the Covenant by faith they are God’s Will.

  82. on 28 Apr 2013 at 10:40 pmSheryl

    Beautifully said, Jas. Thanks. I love how God provides so many opportunities to covenant with him. Instead of looking for ways to find us in error (like police) he looks for ways to bring us close (like a father.)

  83. on 29 Apr 2013 at 2:35 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    The whole passage was about why Jesus left for Galilee . He left because the pharisees had found out he was baptizing more than John.
    Unbelievable blinded!

    have a look in the mirror …. you seem to still not have read carefully what I wrote … in addition you avoid answering and ignore the rather plain and simple questions I had asked regarding John’s and Jesus’ teaching concerning their respective baptisms.

    Joh 4 is plain and clear that Jesus did not baptize with water, nor did his disciples carry out a “(christian) baptism in Jesus’ name” (as that which we read of later after Pentecost).

  84. on 29 Apr 2013 at 6:33 amWolfgang

    Jas

    God always provides for those truly seeking Him so my guess is water baptism was the means of remission of sin during exile or a polluted Temple.

    your guess … indeed, for there happens to be no scripture in support of such an idea. Biblical truth is that there is no water baptism for the remission of sins mentioned prior to John the baptist, and the baptism after John the baptist was supposed to be NOT another water baptism but spirit baptism, as both John and Jesus clearly taught.

    Every year God required a sacrifice to renew the covenat because sin voided your part of the Agreement. Water baptism is also the means of entering a covenant relationship after you have accepted the Words of the Covenant by faith they are God’s Will.

    Another guess of yours ? Water baptism is not mentioned as having anything to do with entering a covenant … not even John’s water baptism!

  85. on 29 Apr 2013 at 8:22 amJas

    have a look in the mirror …. you seem to still not have read carefully what I wrote …”

    Wolfgang
    The verse is very clear that they were baptizing more than John, whether Jesus baptized is not clear in that verse “but the disciples” .
    But one thing is without a doubt is under Jesus’ authority they were watervbaptizing more than what was being done under John’s authority as these verses state.

    3:26 So they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the one who was with you on the other side of the Jordan River, 55 about whom you testified – see, he is baptizing, and everyone is flocking to him!”
    3:27 John replied, 56 “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven

  86. on 29 Apr 2013 at 10:04 amJas

    Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

    Sheryl
    In above post you equate being born of water as being born from your mother.
    Being born of water is being cleansed by water baptism and being born of spirit being renewed by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Most of the time one must be ceremonially washed because of our unrighteousness but righteousness can be accounted by God himself so that the Spirit can work through people temporarily as we see in Acts 10 where Cornelius was already accounted righteous by God . So I do understand what God was saying to Peter about what God has made clean is already clean enough to have the Holy Spirit come upon them. God was teaching Peter a lesson by showing Peter not to prejudge people on race because even some non jews have had Faith in God without the conversion to judaism.

  87. on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:13 amChris

    Also, while I of course believe it is important and respectful to adhere to biblical commandments, I understand that the act of baptism is a symbol of being spiritually cleansed of sin and being born to a new life. Jesus said unless one is born of water (natural birth) and spirit (spiritual re-birth) he cannot enter the kingdom.

    I wholly agree with you, Sheryl. Born of water is natural birth.

    Jas said, “Wierwelle was close on a few things”. I believe Wierwelle was wrong about some things he taught, but that he was spot on about many things. The man spent decades researching the word of God with Walter Cummins and others. To say he “got close on a few things” is an unlearned and ignorant statement in my opinion.Three things of huge importance that he was right on were 1-Jesus Christ is not God. 2-The dead are not alive. 3-Speaking in tongues and the other manifestations of holy spirit listed in 1Cor.12.

  88. on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:58 amJas

    Chris
    All 3 are close but his interpretations and reasoning was self serving.
    Yes Jesus is not God but was not his original revelation
    Yes of course the dead are dead even though it is equated with sleep.
    Yes there are manifestations of the Holy Spirit but his interpretations of them are non sense and also borrowed from an earlier cult called pentecostalism .
    Speaking and interpreting tongues were a teaching tool for the disciples. Paul actually corrects this falsehood .
    The main purpose of Wierwelle was exalting himself by making himself a self proclaimed prophet

  89. on 29 Apr 2013 at 3:20 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    The verse is very clear that they were baptizing more than John, whether Jesus baptized is not clear in that verse “but the disciples” .
    But one thing is without a doubt is under Jesus’ authority they were watervbaptizing more than what was being done under John’s authority as these verses state.

    Actually, the verses do NOT say anything that they were baptizing “under Jesus’ authority (as if Jesus had been giving such command)” !
    As I already have pointed out, Jesus could not have given command for a water baptism, and especially not while John the baptist was still baptizing as well! From what both John and Jesus have clearly said about the matter of “baptism”, water baptism happened as ordained of God during John the Baptist’s ministry, while Christ (the one who came after John) would not baptize with water but with holy spirit!

    When are you finally acknowledging what John and Jesus taught, instead of avoiding and ignoring those plain statements?

  90. on 29 Apr 2013 at 3:24 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    The main purpose of Wierwelle was exalting himself by making himself a self proclaimed prophet

    your ignorance — despite all your supposed study and investigation — shows once again!

    You would be better off to forget about believing and relying on second hand outsider “conclusions” … and to simply acknowledge that you personally don’t know a lousy thing about the man, instead of making a fool of yourself by repeating others’ false assumptions

  91. on 29 Apr 2013 at 3:30 pmJas

    “Actually, the verses do NOT say anything that they were baptizing “under Jesus’ authority (as if Jesus had been giving such command)” !”

    So I wonder what John meant by “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven”
    THE AUTHORITY TO BAPTIZE PEOPLE IN WATER!

    “As I already have pointed out, Jesus could not have given command for a water baptism, and especially not while John the baptist was still baptizing as well! ”

    Really
    Could it be John was decreasing while Jesus was increasing.

    I understand clearly that ” the one who was with you on the other side of the Jordan River, 55 about whom you testified – see, he is baptizing, and everyone is flocking to him!”. Who was Jesus who had been given authority to do so From Heaven

  92. on 29 Apr 2013 at 3:40 pmJas

    “You would be better off to forget about believing and relying on second hand outsider “conclusions” … and to simply acknowledge that you personally don’t know a lousy thing about the man, instead of making a fool of yourself by repeating others’ false assumptions”

    Wolfgang
    Personal first hand testimonials that witness eachother are not outsider conclusions.
    Admit that you still worship this man or feel you have his mantle bestowed upon you.

  93. on 29 Apr 2013 at 4:10 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    Personal first hand testimonials that witness eachother are not outsider conclusions.

    you know, some that I have heard over many years are plainly slander and false accusations … motivated by thoughts of personal revenge,, etc. By the way, quite often those are worse than the false assumptions of ignorant outsider conclusions

    Admit that you still worship this man or feel you have his mantle bestowed upon you.

    “still worship” ? I did not worship him even at the time of knowing him personally … actually, I have been known as having questioned him in class on something he taught and catching quite some “flak” for doing so … 😉 while others apparently did not have the courage to speak up.

  94. on 29 Apr 2013 at 4:13 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    you still ignore what John and Jesus taught about water and spirit baptism … all your beating around the bush doesn’t change the plain truth of what they proclaimed and what sets the stage for what the Sciptures teach about baptism

  95. on 29 Apr 2013 at 4:16 pmWolfgang

    Hi everyone

    will be taking a break for a while from participating with posts … have other things to do.

  96. on 29 Apr 2013 at 4:20 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    I guess we will have to take your word on that, but it looks otherwise .

    I have given you verse after verse after verse which CLEARLY witnesses against your claims but for some unknown or maybe known reason you ignore or twist them as you were trained to do.

  97. on 07 May 2013 at 2:37 pmSteve

    Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

  

Leave a Reply