Baptism

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sword

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,324
225
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
41So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them.

so i'm reading that they were baptized, not sure how you are getting to "they were saved" myself. They were "added to them," which is not the same thing imo.
They were not water baptised the were baptised into Christ and saved through believing in Him
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Sword

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,324
225
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Jesus also said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mk 16:16)

he didn't say what happens to those who believe and don't get baptised. But a refusal to be baptised when presented with the need for it is disobedience and disbelief.
Yes, I would like to know that also.

Because it was you and sranger who want to know I really dont see any point telling either of you how I know.
But lets see if you really want to know.
Into what did the 3000 get baptized on the day of Pentecost
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
yes but back then when John the Baptist and those before him were baptizing did they claim salvation? also before Christ what was the baptism in water for? or mean? just what was being baptized in water all about before the Catholic Church decided to put its two cents in?

What we are discussing in this thread is Christian baptism, instituted by Jesus Christ.

John's baptism comes from the Jewish tevilah (ritual bathing) in a mikvah (ritual bath). which goes right back to the book of Leviticus.There seem to be three occasions where a mikvar is required in Leviticus; those involving birth (including sex and menstruation); death (including skin diseases) and coming into the presence of God. They seem to be a reminder of our uncleanness and the need for purification. So the tevilar/mikvar also became a symbol of repentance, of expressing faith that cleansing was available and of asking for it. Hence John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan as a baptism of repentance. But that was not salvific.

Jesus took this Jewish ritual and made it a Christian one (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16) but making the effects more powerful because it is Jesus who is the prime baptiser. We can see the three purposes I noted above in Christian baptism.

When a Gentile became a Jew the formal entry ritual included a form of words, a tevilah and - for men - circumcision. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) decided circumcision was no longer required. A form of words remained (I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - see Mt 28:19) and the ritual bathing remained in the form of baptism as we know it.

There was another use for the tevilah. When a Jewish Rabbi took on a student as a disciple the Rabbi supervised the student taking a tevilar in his name (Mikvah). Thus you became cleansed from your old life (born again) with your Rabbi as your spiritual father, and you were to believe and observe everything he taught you, and obey his commands. and you were to believe and observe everything he taught you, and obey his commands.
Thus in Christian baptism we become cleansed from our old life, with Jesus as our Rabbi, and we promise to believe and obey him. Also the reference to being baptised in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Acts 2
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Peter tells them that if they get baptised their sins will be forgiven (vs 38); they will receive the Holy Spirit (vs 39); they will be saved from this crooked generation (vs 40).

They were added to the Church.

That's salvation.
gotta wonder, then, how it became "saved from hell-fire," huh.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
They were not water baptised the were baptised into Christ and saved through believing in Him
hmm, interesting! i am inclined to agree, yet the NT seems to compel a perspective of physically dunking in water, that is hard to square spiritually imo. Despite the obvious symbology of "water."
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Because it was you and sranger who want to know I really dont see any point telling either of you how I know.
But lets see if you really want to know.
Into what did the 3000 get baptized on the day of Pentecost

This seems a typical case of desperately trying to get round what scripture clearly says to fit a predetermined belief - in this case that baptism (with water) cannot be salvific.

Look st some of the arguments:
They would not have been allowed to do this on a (high) Sabbath. Nonsense! We are talking about ritual purification here not everyday work. It would be normal to cleanse oneself before entering the Temple of all places.

"Peter using one or several of a small number of baptistries and / or pools in Jerusalem (naturally filled with “moving water”, from rainfall), which is what some commentaries on this verse speculate as having happened."
"Several" is actually 48 at the foot of the southern steps alone. Places where people would be going anyway for purification.

"The problem with this is they completely ignore the fact that Peter had no ecclesiastic authority whatsoever to commandeer the use of baptistries"
Why would anyone need ecclesiastical authority to use a mikvah? They were there to be used by ordinary people. John the Baptist had no "ecclesiastical authority" to baptise but the Pharisees came to be baptised by him.

Then you invent the idea that people were "baptised into Christ" by believing in him. Where does that come from in scripture?

Peter said "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
What did Peter mean by 'being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ'?
In Acts 10:46-48 we read "Then Peter declared, "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. "
For Peter, being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ means being baptised in water.
Pete also connects baptism with water in 1Pet 3:20-21.

If we look at Acts 8 we find Philip baptising people "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (vs 15). What did baptism mean to Philip? We find out in vs 36-38 and it's baptism in water.
 

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What we are discussing in this thread is Christian baptism, instituted by Jesus Christ.

John's baptism comes from the Jewish tevilah (ritual bathing) in a mikvah (ritual bath). which goes right back to the book of Leviticus.There seem to be three occasions where a mikvar is required in Leviticus; those involving birth (including sex and menstruation); death (including skin diseases) and coming into the presence of God. They seem to be a reminder of our uncleanness and the need for purification. So the tevilar/mikvar also became a symbol of repentance, of expressing faith that cleansing was available and of asking for it. Hence John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan as a baptism of repentance. But that was not salvific.

Jesus took this Jewish ritual and made it a Christian one (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16) but making the effects more powerful because it is Jesus who is the prime baptiser. We can see the three purposes I noted above in Christian baptism.

When a Gentile became a Jew the formal entry ritual included a form of words, a tevilah and - for men - circumcision. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) decided circumcision was no longer required. A form of words remained (I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - see Mt 28:19) and the ritual bathing remained in the form of baptism as we know it.

There was another use for the tevilah. When a Jewish Rabbi took on a student as a disciple the Rabbi supervised the student taking a tevilar in his name (Mikvah). Thus you became cleansed from your old life (born again) with your Rabbi as your spiritual father, and you were to believe and observe everything he taught you, and obey his commands. and you were to believe and observe everything he taught you, and obey his commands.
Thus in Christian baptism we become cleansed from our old life, with Jesus as our Rabbi, and we promise to believe and obey him. Also the reference to being baptised in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5)


nope you are discussing the need for baptism by water for salvation of which the others say isn't necessary, and you are headed toward showing according to Catholicism that it is necessary, using scripture to justify that theology. where you are headed isn't new in these discussions. your opening statement in this posting is a standard attempt to sets up the justification for the catholic church's version and self declared "authority to interpret".

the baptism by water is an open public act of repentance, turning from one way toward God in this case. been done in Israeli culture who knows how long. turning in the heart toward God in repentance is required to be saved for sure, but the water isn't. baptism of the Holy Spirit is. and needless to say without repentance the baptism in the Holy Spirit wouldn't come to pass.

the theme of the day was "repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand" a John the Baptist quote and repeated by Jesus Himself. hence the open act of repentance baptism by water. its my understanding in that day they had many pools for such activity, but John chose the Jordon instead. could be because those who used them were a lot like water baptized person that call themselves Christians today.


you know just as well as anyone that many have been baptized by water in whatever way and they are no where close to being saved or born of the Holy Spirit. so the act of baptism by water is of no effect of its own nor has any intrinsic power to save a soul. but baptism in the Holy Spirit is the Power of salvation, and is as effective as it gets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009 and Sword

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
nope you are discussing the need for baptism by water for salvation of which the others say isn't necessary, and you are headed toward showing according to Catholicism that it is necessary, using scripture to justify that theology. where you are headed isn't new in these discussions. your opening statement in this posting is a standard attempt to sets up the justification for the catholic church's version and self declared "authority to interpret".

Christian baptism, the one that Jesus commanded, the one that the apostles practiced, the one that the Church has pracrticed for 2,000 years, is different from John' baptism. That is clearly shown in Acts 19 where twelve men had only been baptised with John's baptism. Paul had them baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus". This is the same baptism that 3,000 were baptised at Pentecost, that Cornelius and his household were baptised (Acts 10:48) and with which Philip baptised (Acts 8:16).

the baptism by water is an open public act of repentance, turning from one way toward God in this case. been done in Israeli culture who knows how long. turning in the heart toward God in repentance is required to be saved for sure, but the water isn't. baptism of the Holy Spirit is. and needless to say without repentance the baptism in the Holy Spirit wouldn't come to pass.

An assertion for which you provide no evidence.

the theme of the day was "repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand" a John the Baptist quote and repeated by Jesus Himself. hence the open act of repentance baptism by water. its my understanding in that day they had many pools for such activity, but John chose the Jordon instead. could be because those who used them were a lot like water baptized person that call themselves Christians today.

That add nothing to the discussion

you know just as well as anyone that many have been baptized by water in whatever way and they are no where close to being saved or born of the Holy Spirit. so the act of baptism by water is of no effect of its own nor has any intrinsic power to save a soul. but baptism in the Holy Spirit is the Power of salvation, and is as effective as it gets.

Quite wrong. But as you provide no evidence to back up your assertion I have no need to go further in reply.
 

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Christian baptism, the one that Jesus commanded, the one that the apostles practiced, the one that the Church has pracrticed for 2,000 years, is different from John' baptism. That is clearly shown in Acts 19 where twelve men had only been baptised with John's baptism. Paul had them baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus". This is the same baptism that 3,000 were baptised at Pentecost, that Cornelius and his household were baptised (Acts 10:48) and with which Philip baptised (Acts 8:16).



An assertion for which you provide no evidence.



That add nothing to the discussion



Quite wrong. But as you provide no evidence to back up your assertion I have no need to go further in reply.

mungo, you know just as well as anyone that, if you disagree you are welcome to prove any statement false, but you haven't have you?
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Christian baptism, the one that Jesus commanded, the one that the apostles practiced, the one that the Church has pracrticed for 2,000 years, is different from John' baptism. That is clearly shown in Acts 19 where twelve men had only been baptised with John's baptism. Paul had them baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus".


I find it interesting that water was never mentioned in acts 19. Nor at pentacost in chapter 2. Again, there were some that were baptized in water. No problem with that at all.

John bapized with water unto repentance and pointed to Christ. What did Jon say Jesus would bapize with? The Holy Ghost and with fire.

So why don't we stop with the old baptism of Jon and start baptizing with fire?

Well that answer is obvious... But the question remains that if we don't have to be baptized with literal fire, why must we be baptized with literal water?

The Holy ghost is the spirit of truth. Fire is a purifier in this sense. Heb 12 says God is a consuming fire. God is the Word. So the fire either represents God (Jesus himself) or his Word.

We must be bapised in the spirit of truth By the Word of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
They were not water baptised the were baptised into Christ and saved through believing in Him

This makes zero sense to me. How can you command someone to "repent and be baptized" if baptism has nothing to do with a response they are capable of making? Clearly they were water baptized. You can't command someone to be Spirit baptized anymore than you can command the wind to change directions.

I also disagree with the notion that baptism is unnecessary but should be done. Where do we get the notion that it is unnecessary? Jesus commanded it. The early church practiced it. Ananias told Paul to "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16) Paul declared that it is in baptism we are united in Christ's death (Rom. 6:1-3), united with Christ (Gal. 3:27), and raised with him (Col 2:12). Peter also says it "saves you" (1 Peter 3:21). So, I am wondering how people can see these commands as unnecessary or the declarations about what happens in baptism as invalid.

Obviously, we are saved by grace through faith. Yet, baptism is a response that God has required of those who desire to put their faith in Jesus Christ. Nowhere do these verses say baptism "symbolizes" being buried, raised or united with Christ. Rather they say, very explicitly, "you were raised with him in baptism...." etc. Thus, I believe that we should understand that something very significant happens in baptism for those who cry out to God for cleansing by faith in Jesus Christ. I can read these texts no other way. In fact, the Church believed this for 1500 years until Zwingli declared baptism to be a "work" in contrast to "faith." Luther (the sola fide pioneer) even rejected this notion and declared that "if baptism is a work, it is God's work."

In sum, I don't think we should dismiss baptism as unnecessary. It is not a "work" and neither is it oppositional to salvation by faith. And to suggest that this baptism is "spiritual" only in nature is completely unsupported by the NT. You cannot spiritually baptize disciples of all nations. You cannot command people to repent and be spiritually baptized. Moreover, it is very evident throughout Acts that the early church was immersing people in water as their "baptism." Thus, it would seem to me that theological agendas alone would be the only reason for eliminating water from the discussions of baptism in the narratives of Acts. I don't think water has to be specifically mentioned in every occasion to validate its presence. Especially when there is no legitimate reason for implying its absence. In English, if I write, "Joe dunked me" then we all (rightly) assume I was dunked in water. We wouldn't assume it was coffee, syrup or into a spirit/Spirit unless I specifically mentioned as much in the context. The Greeks used the transliterated word "baptizo" the same way. It was not a "spiritual" word. It was a common word that indicated being dunked or dipped. Again, water is implied unless the context says otherwise.

Just some of my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This makes zero sense to me. How can you command someone to "repent and be baptized" if baptism has nothing to do with a response they are capable of making? Clearly they were water baptized. You can't command someone to be Spirit baptized anymore than you can command the wind to change directions.

I also disagree with the notion that baptism is unnecessary but should be done. Where do we get the notion that it is unnecessary? Jesus commanded it. The early church practiced it. Ananias told Paul to "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16) Paul declared that it is in baptism we are united in Christ's death (Rom. 6:1-3), united with Christ (Gal. 3:27), and raised with him (Col 2:12). Peter also says it "saves you" (1 Peter 3:21). So, I am wondering how people can see these commands as unnecessary or the declarations about what happens in baptism as invalid.

Obviously, we are saved by grace through faith. Yet, baptism is a response that God has required of those who desire to put their faith in Jesus Christ. Nowhere do these verses say baptism "symbolizes" being buried, raised or united with Christ. Rather they say, very explicitly, "you were raised with him in baptism...." etc. Thus, I believe that we should understand that something very significant happens in baptism for those who cry out to God for cleansing by faith in Jesus Christ. I can read these texts no other way. In fact, the Church believed this for 1500 years until Zwingli declared baptism to be a "work" in contrast to "faith." Luther (the sola fide pioneer) even rejected this notion and declared that "if baptism is a work, it is God's work."

In sum, I don't think we should dismiss baptism as unnecessary. It is not a "work" and neither is it oppositional to salvation by faith. And to suggest that this baptism is "spiritual" only in nature is completely unsupported by the NT. You cannot spiritually baptize disciples of all nations. You cannot command people to repent and be spiritually baptized. Moreover, it is very evident throughout Acts that the early church was immersing people in water as their "baptism." Thus, it would seem to me that theological agendas alone would be the only reason for eliminating water from the discussions of baptism in the narratives of Acts. I don't think water has to be specifically mentioned in every occasion to validate its presence. Especially when there is no legitimate reason for implying its absence. In English, if I write, "Joe dunked me" then we all (rightly) assume I was dunked in water. We wouldn't assume it was coffee, syrup or into a spirit/Spirit unless I specifically mentioned as much in the context. The Greeks used the transliterated word "baptizo" the same way. It was not a "spiritual" word. It was a common word that indicated being dunked or dipped. Again, water is implied unless the context says otherwise.

Just some of my thoughts.
I on the otherhand don't understand your confusion, Wormwood.

Sword's statement was technically open ended. He wasn't replying to a quote directly. In proper context, he must have had something on his mind.

Let's look at the quote:

They were not water baptised the were baptised into Christ and saved through believing in Hi
He said "they" but didn't specify. So yes he had a previous post on his mind. But... He didn't quote it.

But not everyone in the historical period was water baptised. Its only assumed they were but in SOME instances water is never mentioned.

Now what you said Sword was saying is that "they" have no control over a spiritual baptism. Yet he noted they had to believe in him.

I kind of want to bring in the whole free will debate, but I won't. He stated it must start with belief. So how is it that belief isn't a response?

Water baptism IS unessessary but it is allowed. I don't even agree that it should be done. I don't object to it, but I merely say it can be done.

Water baptism is John's baptism. Jesus's is with the Holy spirit (the spirit of truth) and fire (the Word).

I have not been baptized literally with water. I have been baptized with fire, with the spirit of truth and I jave been washed with water of the Word. I am not opposed to it and even have a Pastor who will do it if I ask.

But it ain't necessary and if that makes anyone unsettled towards me.... Well i don't care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sword

Sword

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,324
225
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
This makes zero sense to me. How can you command someone to "repent and be baptized" if baptism has nothing to do with a response they are capable of making? Clearly they were water baptized. You can't command someone to be Spirit baptized anymore than you can command the wind to change directions.

I also disagree with the notion that baptism is unnecessary but should be done. Where do we get the notion that it is unnecessary? Jesus commanded it. The early church practiced it. Ananias told Paul to "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16) Paul declared that it is in baptism we are united in Christ's death (Rom. 6:1-3), united with Christ (Gal. 3:27), and raised with him (Col 2:12). Peter also says it "saves you" (1 Peter 3:21). So, I am wondering how people can see these commands as unnecessary or the declarations about what happens in baptism as invalid.

Obviously, we are saved by grace through faith. Yet, baptism is a response that God has required of those who desire to put their faith in Jesus Christ. Nowhere do these verses say baptism "symbolizes" being buried, raised or united with Christ. Rather they say, very explicitly, "you were raised with him in baptism...." etc. Thus, I believe that we should understand that something very significant happens in baptism for those who cry out to God for cleansing by faith in Jesus Christ. I can read these texts no other way. In fact, the Church believed this for 1500 years until Zwingli declared baptism to be a "work" in contrast to "faith." Luther (the sola fide pioneer) even rejected this notion and declared that "if baptism is a work, it is God's work."

In sum, I don't think we should dismiss baptism as unnecessary. It is not a "work" and neither is it oppositional to salvation by faith. And to suggest that this baptism is "spiritual" only in nature is completely unsupported by the NT. You cannot spiritually baptize disciples of all nations. You cannot command people to repent and be spiritually baptized. Moreover, it is very evident throughout Acts that the early church was immersing people in water as their "baptism." Thus, it would seem to me that theological agendas alone would be the only reason for eliminating water from the discussions of baptism in the narratives of Acts. I don't think water has to be specifically mentioned in every occasion to validate its presence. Especially when there is no legitimate reason for implying its absence. In English, if I write, "Joe dunked me" then we all (rightly) assume I was dunked in water. We wouldn't assume it was coffee, syrup or into a spirit/Spirit unless I specifically mentioned as much in the context. The Greeks used the transliterated word "baptizo" the same way. It was not a "spiritual" word. It was a common word that indicated being dunked or dipped. Again, water is implied unless the context says otherwise.

Just some of my thoughts.
Into what did the 3000 get baptized on the day of Pentecost

Did you read it?
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I find it interesting that water was never mentioned in acts 19. Nor at pentacost in chapter 2. Again, there were some that were baptized in water. No problem with that at all.

In post #28 I said:
What did Peter mean by 'being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ'?
In Acts 10:46-48 we read "Then Peter declared, "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. "
For Peter, being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ means being baptised in water.
Peter also connects baptism with water in 1Pet 3:20-21.

Therefore, In Acts 2, when Peter said "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." He must have meant baptism with water.

Again in post #28 I said:
If we look at Acts 8 we find Philip baptising people "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (vs 15). What did baptism mean to Philip? We find out in vs 36-38 and it's baptism in water.

Thus in both Acts 8 and Acts 10 we see that baptism in the name of Jesus means being baptised with water.

Therefore in Acts 19 when Paul has the twelve men baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus"it means baptised in water.
 
Last edited:

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Apart from the evidence already given that baptism is with water, there are other text that support this view.

This baptism was prophesied by Ezekial (Ez 36:25-27): I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you….
I will sprinkle clean water upon you – baptism with water.

..let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. (Heb 10:22)

Baptism with water is also foretold by Jesus when he says to Nicodemus “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3:5)

There was some expectation that the herald of the Messiah would baptise with water. “They [the Pharisees] asked him, ‘Why then are you [John] baptising if you are neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?’” (Jn 1:25)

Paul’s own baptism by Ananias was reported in two places, firstly in Acts 9:18 and then reported by Paul in these words Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16). Having sins washed away is clearly a reference to water.

"he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit" (Ti 3:5). The NAB gives a better translation of washing of regeneration - "bath of rebirth". I say better because the Greek word loutrou (Strong G3067) means bath.

Strong G3067
loutron
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism:—washing.


Paul writes to the Ephesians:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Eph 5:25-27).
Again washing is loutro (Strong G3067)

Early texts, even of apostolic times, show that baptism was with water.
"Regarding baptism, baptise thus. After giving the forgoing instructions, "Baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, baptise in any other..." Didache – (1st century AD)

A man is dead before he receives the seal, he puts off death and receives life. The seal, therefore is water. The dead go down into the water and come out of it living The Shepherd 9:16:3 (AD 80)

This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up, bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit. Letter to Barnabus chap 11 (70-131 AD)

All sorts of efforts are made to try and pretend that water doesn't mean water. But scripture is very clear that baptism is with water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

NolaNonola

New Member
Jul 16, 2017
2
2
3
27
Arizona
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In post #28 I said:
What did Peter mean by 'being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ'?
In Acts 10:46-48 we read "Then Peter declared, "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. "
For Peter, being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ means being baptised in water.
Peter also connects baptism with water in 1Pet 3:20-21.

Therefore, In Acts 2, when Peter said "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." He must have meant baptism with water.

Again in post #28 I said:
If we look at Acts 8 we find Philip baptising people "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (vs 15). What did baptism mean to Philip? We find out in vs 36-38 and it's baptism in water.

Thus in both Acts 8 and Acts 10 we see that baptism in the name of Jesus means being baptised with water.

Therefore in Acts 19 when Paul has the twelve men baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus"it means baptised in water.

Hi Mungo.

Referring to Acts 10:46-48 the holy spirit fell on these people prior to water baptism. They also admit that it's the same spirit they have received when they (the jews) believed. So then does this prove that baptism in and of itself doesn't save? Because when you read Ephesians 1:13-14 it shows how having the spirit is a guarantee of their inheritance / salvation / forgiven of sin. It's going to be Either A) a special circumstance or B) that it doesn't do as you're proposing water baptism does.

To add to the discussion of water baptism refer to 1 John 5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

In this case it's saying that the baptism Jesus received was just as important as his crucifixion. Is it possible some of the verses we cite is not referring to our baptism but his?