Baptism

[Mungo]

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.

Hi NolaNonola,
I think this is special circumstances. I know that can sound like a cop-out but consider this:

Being baptised with the Holy Spirit was prophesied by Joel (Acts 2:16-21) and by John the Baptist (Lk 3:16). It was promised by Jesus (Acts 1:5) and fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4 and Acts 10:44-46. However this was not the first time the Holy Spirit was poured out upon people. There were many occasions in the Old Testament where the Spirit was poured out upon people:
When they came to Gibe-ah, behold, a band of prophets met him; and the spirit of God came mightily upon him, and he prophesied among them. (1Sam 10:10)
Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward. (1Sam 16:13).

Joels's prophecy that Peter quoted in Acts 2:17 says 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh'. 'All flesh' means 'all mankind'. At that time the Jews divided mankind into two groups - Jews and Gentiles. So all flesh had to include the Gentiles. The disciples did not understand this and needed to be instructed. This is what Acts 10 is about.

First Peter has a vision in which he is instructed. But then other disciples needed to be instructed also. When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Cornelius and his household they understood - And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. (vs 45). Then when the disciples back in Jerusalem heard about this they also accepted it (Acts 11:18). However not all did. The dispute rumbled on and Paul had to return to Jerusalem for a ruling on the matter - see Acts 15.

At the meeting Peter recalled the event with Cornelius:
"Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us" (Acts 15:7-8)

This is why this pouring out of the Holy Spirit is unique, just as Pentecost was unique. That's not to say that this pouring out of the Holy Spirit didn't (and doesn't) happen again. Clearly it did and does. But these were very special circumstances. So special that all the elements - Peter's vision, Cornelius' vision, the angels' instructions to send for Peter and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit - were recorded twice in Acts 10 and 11.

Moreover Cornelius and his household were not just any Gentiles. They were god-fearers: "a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God." They followed the Jewish prayer times. "I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house". The angel said "Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God" Peter said to Cornelius "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him".

Cornelius and his household were acceptable to God. But they still needed to be brought into a new relationship with God in the New Covenant, have their sins forgiven, and have the Spirit 'within'. Therefore they still had to be baptised in water.

(Sorry if that's a bit long - though I could say more on this).

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?

I think this refers to the water and blood that poured out of Jesus' side at the crucifixion when the solder pierces him with a spear.(John 19:34). Remember John was there and witnessed this.

 

[Wormwood]

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.

It seemed evident to me that he was quoting and responding to the text in Acts 2:41. He claimed that none of them were water baptized. It didn't at all seem "open-ended" to me. It seemed clear he was making a declaration about the text and claiming that the baptism in Acts 2:38 had nothing to do with water. There doesn't seem to be anything open-ended about this...seems like a direct statement about the text. The "they" he is referring to is the 3,000 who were added to their number on the day of Pentecost.

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

Do you have any proof of this statement? I can assure you that the early church water baptized all new converts. It is a historical fact. Archeological digs show that early churches had baptistries hewn out of rock beds that were used for immersing converts. There is extensive writing on the topic by the early church fathers and the book of Acts makes it very evident that early believers were baptized in water. (see Acts 8:39; 10:46-48; 19:2-5). If you like, we can explore early church documents about conversion and baptism if you feel the NT texts are ambiguous.

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.

I understand your position. However, I am interested in what the Bible teaches on the topic. So, while I understand your convictions, I cannot be swayed by them if I don't see those convictions supported by the teachings of the NT. Water baptism is not John's baptism. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. The baptism into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Both are with water, but the purpose of each was different. One was a declaration of turning from an old way of life, the other was a submission to and faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Again, you have yet to explain to me how we can be commanded to "baptize" others or "repent and be baptized" if it is not something we have any actual control over. You can't command someone to "get up and be baptized [in the Spirit]" or "repent and be baptized [in the Spirit]". Unless you have some knowledge of how to command the Spirit to do your bidding, I think you have to recognize these texts and calls for people to be immersed in water. I just cannot see how they can be anything else. I think my perspective is validated by texts that mention water in passing, as well as pretty much every early church document that discusses the issue of baptism.

 

[Wormwood]

Into what did the 3000 get baptized on the day of Pentecost

Did you read it?

Yes. Here are my responses...

1). Basically no scholars agree with this online blog you cited. Do you even know who this blogger is? I mean, I looked at pretty much every published commentary I have on the topic as well as ancient scholars and none of them even question the fact this was a water baptism.

• Insofar as possible it is important to avoid introducing the agent with be baptized, but if the receptor language in question has no passive construction nor any substitute passive, for example, “receive baptism,” one can introduce “we” (exclusive) as the subject, such as “we will baptize you.”
• Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1972), 59.

• One more distinction which separated this baptism from that of John was the gift of the Holy Spirit. He did not promise “the gifts of the Spirit” to everyone (see 1 Cor 12:1), but “the gift of the Spirit”—that is, the Holy Spirit himself. He also repeated the universal availability of this gift for “you and your children and for all who are far off.” The last phrase even embodies Gentiles.
• Dennis Gaertner, Acts, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), Ac 2:37–40.

• Here the Spirit seems to be promised immediately following or as a concomitant of baptism, whereas in 10:44–48 the coming of the Spirit seems to have preceded water baptism. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, but receipt of the Spirit was not mentioned (8:38), though his resulting joy was a gift of the Spirit.
• John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 116.

• There are similarities and differences between the baptism of John and baptism in the name of Jesus. Like the Baptist, Peter calls upon his fellow Israelites to be baptized ‘for the forgiveness of your sins’ (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hymōn; cf. Lk. 3:3; Acts 22:16). But he does this with the certainty that such forgiveness is a present possibility because of the Messiah’s death, resurrection, and ascension. In the apostolic preaching, the offer of forgiveness is directly linked with repentance towards God and faith in Jesus as the Christ (cf. 3:19–20; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38–39).
• David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 155.

• The context shows baptism here refers to water, not the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, water baptism became the uniform of the Lord’s people. Today we call it “believers’ baptism,” the conscious identification with Jesus on the part of those who have trusted him for salvation. The gift of the Holy Spirit then became the seal of salvation. To whom is this available? For all whom the Lord our God will call.
• Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, vol. 5, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 30.

• That this new birth is somehow the result of both water and the Spirit brings to mind Acts 2:38, which connects water baptism with the gift of the Spirit.
• Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 364.

2) It seems evident to me that the disciples and the audience recognized the peculiar moving of the Spirit in that instance. Peter quotes passages that indicate that the "great and magnificent day of the Lord" was at hand and people were to respond immediately. Thus, in light of the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit, it would seem the people were convinced that an immediate response was necessary. Moreover, it seems clear that early Christians did not see water baptism as a "work" and neither did they believe "works" were any longer the means of salvation.

3) All early church fathers speak of this event in terms of water baptism. As those who actually lived near this 1st century time period, I think they would have a better grasp on whether or not such an account is "realistic" or not with a Jewish audience.

4). Most commentators who speak on this passage see no practical issues with baptizing that number of people in the pools available. They were quite large and certainly if people were persuaded it was what God desired for them for forgiveness and the promise of eternal life, a few hours of waiting in line likely wouldn't deter them.

5) Again, it makes no sense to me to command someone to be baptized spiritually. It would be like telling them to repent and make tongues of fire appear on their heads. Why would he command them to do something that is not in their power? Wouldn't he say, "Repent and pray to God so you might receive a spiritual baptism."

6). Contextually, the people would have heard "be baptized" with a command to be immersed in water. It was regularly seen both by John's baptism and the ritualistic washings of the day.

7). Grammatically, the people would have heard this phrase with a command to be immersed in water. If I tell you I was dunked at the park, you would assume I was dunked in water. I don't have to explicitly tell you water was involved. However, if I was dunked in something OTHER than water, then I would state as much. The Greek language would have been read the same way. The readers or hearers would not automatically assume that this baptism is anything but immersion in water unless further clarification is made.

 

[Sword]

can you narrow this down and tell me why you think there were 3000 water baptised on that day?

PS and all your scholors all saved are they. see we tend to belive becaus ethey are theologians that they are saved, most or not. Many many teach on spiritual things and are not saved there for its impossible for them to teach the spiritual. Even the NIV was written with homosexuals. Thats why so many homosexual verses where taken out completly and other verses waterd down. Jesus never learned from there like but you are leaning towards then as oppose to what you are told to do. learn from the Holy Ghost.

 

[Wormwood]

Sword,

I understand that education doesn't mean a person is right. However, I do think it is relevant as to whether or not someone has an informed viewpoint. I mean, why is it we can quote online bloggers as authoritative, but discount scholars who have spend their entire lives studying and writing on these topics? For all we know, this blogger could be a HS student who has little to no understanding of the Bible at all. Published sources have to go through a publisher. THere is no vetting process for online writers. Anyone can write a blog and post it online. I think we need to be careful that we dont allow our own personal bias in the discussion to color how we see these sources. I assure you, all of the scholars I quoted are quite conservative. Feel free to Google each of their names and credentials.

I am trying to understand your request here. Does this mean you basically dont want to read my post and are asking for the Cliff Notes version? Ha.

Ok. Here you go:
1. Conservative scholars who know the Greek language and have a strong grasp of the historical setting have no problem with seeing this as water baptism. In fact, they pretty much ALL see it this way.
2. Given the situation, it doesn't seem the normal rest on Pentecost would have prevented people from responding to the Spirit's moving.
3. Early church writers see this as water baptism.
4. It would not have been impractical to baptize this number of people.
5. You cannot command someone be baptized spiritually. Telling the 3,000 to "repent and be baptized [spiritually]" makes no sense.
6/7. The grammar and context implies water and that is how early readers would have read this passage.

 

[Job]

learn from the Holy Ghost.

Bloggers and Youtude videos are not the Holy Ghost.

 

[lforrest]

Bloggers and Youtude videos are not the Holy Ghost.

I would expect lifetime scholars to do a lot of wheel spinning in their search for answers, but if the Holy Spirit teaches shouldn't the answers come easy? Of course the Spirit may not indulge every curiosity if he does not intend for you to apply it for the Kingdom. This I believe is the source of confusion, when we struggle for answers and use our own reasoning because the word you want is out of season.

Does linguistic analysis of the Greek and Hebrew text require the Holy Spirit? Seems to me it should not, so that we have another witness to what the Spirit says.

 

[FHII]

It seemed evident to me that he was quoting and responding to the text in Acts 2:41. He claimed that none of them were water baptized. It didn't at all seem "open-ended" to me

Fine. But when I read his post (the one you quoted) he didn't mention the 3000 and he didnt quote a post that did. It is an assumption that he did. It might be a correct assumption. But I try to assume as little as possible on this board. I'd rather have comfirmation. In any sense, I feel akward disscussing what an active member said when he can expound on it himself.

Do you have any proof of this statement? I can assure you that the early church water baptized all new converts. I

The historical period I am speaking of is the time period of the book of Acts. And yes I can. On of the scriptural references you made is my proof.

Acts 19:2-6
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this , they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Wormwood, water was not mentioned. In fact they received th HG when Paul laid hands on them. Water was not mentioned in Acts 2. When Jesus baptized (through his disciples) in John 3 water was not mentioned. Paul even said he did very little baptizing (which was by water) at Corinth. And no, there isn't proof someone did it for him.

I understand your position. However, I am interested in what the Bible teaches on the topic

With all due respect, everything I have said is grounded in the scripture. If you disagree with my conclusion, fine. But I have not talked about how the early church hewed out bapestries in rocks. Thats not in the Bible. Its probably true. But you seem to hint that my pov isn't biblical. They are. But I don't ever remember the Bible talking about hewn baptistries.

Water baptism is not John's baptism. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. The baptism into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Both are with water, but the purpose of each was different.

Matthew 3:10-11 KJV
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. [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:

Jesus baptizes with th HG and and with fire.

Let me break for a second to say AGAIN i am not against water baptism. I am saying I am aginst those who say it is necessary. I absolutely know this isn't a literal fire. But the baptism that IS necessary is by the HG and fire. I've written on this thread about that already.

Again, you have yet to explain to me how we can be commanded to "baptize" others or "repent and be baptized" if it is not something we have any actual control over.

No, YOU have to show me where either I or Sword said that! I can't speak totally for Sword, but in the quote of him you put up, he didn't say that.

Regardless... Jesus commanded those to teach and baptize. You really don't understand how he could do that when the Apostles and disciples didn't have control?

I am a teacher. That's my profession. I have a contract that commands me to teach my middle school students.

Do you see where I am going with that?

Wormwood, I am not against water baptism. I was done and can be done today. My point is that it is not the baptism that counts. The one that counts is with the HG and with fire. I have already discussed that, so if you have a question about that, read what I have said about it beforehand.

 

[Wormwood]

I would expect lifetime scholars to do a lot of wheel spinning in their search for answers, but if the Holy Spirit teaches shouldn't the answers come easy? Of course the Spirit may not indulge every curiosity if he does not intend for you to apply it for the Kingdom. This I believe is the source of confusion, when we struggle for answers and use our own reasoning because the word you want is out of season.

Does linguistic analysis of the Greek and Hebrew text require the Holy Spirit? Seems to me it should not, so that we have another witness to what the Spirit says.

I guess the question we have to answer is, "How does the Holy Spirit speak?" If our answer is that the Holy Spirit speaks primarily through sudden personal urges, insight and promptings, then I guess I would just have to differ on that point because I don't really see that taught in the NT. I mean, it seems to me that the primary way the Holy Spirit teaches is through the Church and through teachers and preachers. It seemed Paul wrote as a means of educating the Church and encouraged other teachers to educate and teach the members of the local congregation. I don't see much by way of exhortation to dismiss teachers because the Spirit's desire to teach primarily through personal illumination.

Also, I see the Spirit teaching through the inspired Word of God. Thus, it would only make sense to me that we should highly esteem those who have a vast knowledge of that Word...in its message, context and original languages. Yet, mostly I just see such people set up for ridicule by many here..which I think is very unfortunate. I don't think something has to be spontaneous to be Spiritual....I think this is rarely the case, actually.

It is good to study. It is good to devote ourselves to the Scriptures. And I believe God rewards those who diligently pursue him and bind his Word on their hearts and minds. I think he wants us to understand baptism, which is why he taught on the topic and inspired those words to be preserved for us to learn from. I don't think a supernatural personal revelation is needed when we have been given the revelation clearly taught in the Word...which is inspired by the Spirit.

 

[Wormwood]

Fine. But when I read his post (the one you quoted) he didn't mention the 3000 and he didnt quote a post that did. It is an assumption that he did. It might be a correct assumption. But I try to assume as little as possible on this board. I'd rather have comfirmation. In any sense, I feel akward disscussing what an active member said when he can expound on it himself.

I understand. I just felt like I understood him perfectly fine. I understand if you felt he was too vague that you didn't want to respond. I, however, didn't feel the same way..and I think my understanding was correct given the ongoing discussion.

Wormwood, water was not mentioned. In fact they received th HG when Paul laid hands on them. Water was not mentioned in Acts 2. When Jesus baptized (through his disciples) in John 3 water was not mentioned. Paul even said he did very little baptizing (which was by water) at Corinth. And no, there isn't proof someone did it for him.

1. Acts 2 does not say they received the HG at the laying on of hands. I think you are thinking of a different text (Probably when the Samaritans were brought into the church in Acts 8). I think there is a significant reason why the HG did not come at water baptism in this case because it was the first time non-Jews were entering the church. (ps, we know this was water baptism even though water isn't mentioned because they obviously did not receive the Spirit at the time of this baptism!) The HG also arrived a unique way in Acts 10 when the first Gentiles entered the church. Even Peter was surprised in this instance. However, I don't think these cases where the first Samaritans or Gentiles enter the church should dismiss the didactic passages on baptism found elsewhere in the NT. I think we should see unique, supernatural occurrences as just that. I mean, do we expect visual tongues of fire to appear over the head of every person who receives the Spirit? Clearly some of the events in Acts are not to be seen as normative. We should allow didactic passage to help us understand what is normative.

2. Are you saying the baptisms in John 3 were not in water?

3. I think there is proof that Paul had someone baptizing for him. “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.” (1 Corinthians 1:14–15, NIV84) Paul doesn't say that he is thankful they were not baptized. He says he is thankful he was not the one who did it so they couldn't use that as a means to be divisive and say they were followers of Paul. If anything this shows how important baptism was for the early church that they were using it as a means of expressing special allegiance or prominence based on the person who baptized them. Paul's frustration with the Corinthians has nothing to do with baptism as such, but with how they were misapplying it as a means of boasting or creating divisions within the church based on who performed the baptism. In MANY other texts, Paul assumes every Christian has been baptized. I can explore those with you if you like.

With all due respect, everything I have said is grounded in the scripture. If you disagree with my conclusion, fine. But I have not talked about how the early church hewed out bapestries in rocks. Thats not in the Bible. Its probably true. But you seem to hint that my pov isn't biblical. They are. But I don't ever remember the Bible talking about hewn baptistries.

Well, you said, "the historical period." So, I figured you were making an appeal to early church history. If you are only wanting to refer to the Bible, then I cited three passages that explicitly show in Acts that water was used as well as pointed out how the Greek grammar would have been understood by every reader as immersion in water. I mean, really, its like someone trying to argue that when Jesus sighed deeply or breathed his last, that he was breathing something other than air...because air is never explicitly mentioned. The fact that it is not mentioned only shows that it is so easily understood by the early reader that such details were deemed superfluous.

Jesus baptizes with th HG and and with fire.

Let me break for a second to say AGAIN i am not against water baptism. I am saying I am aginst those who say it is necessary. I absolutely know this isn't a literal fire. But the baptism that IS necessary is by the HG and fire. I've written on this thread about that already.

Yes, but the HG comes at water baptism. Thus, baptism (in water) by faith in the name of Jesus causes the one baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. That is precisely what Peter says in Acts 2 and what Paul teaches elsewhere (as well as every church father in the early church).

I guess I am stumped at what you mean by "necessary." Jesus commanded we make disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Matt 28. Surely you are not suggesting it is unnecessary to obey Jesus or that Jesus gave commands that were without merit. So, I guess you need to explain to me what you mean by this and your definition of what makes something biblically necessary.

No, YOU have to show me where either I or Sword said that! I can't speak totally for Sword, but in the quote of him you put up, he didn't say that.

Ok, well, to back up a step and clarify...do you believe Peter is talking about water baptism or a spirit baptism that has no connection with water in Acts 2?

 

[Truth]

DPMartin is right, What were those being Baptized by John being baptized for!!! the remission of sin,not forgiveness of sin, also when did the Gospel begin to be preached. and by the way this was nothing new to the Jewish people, they had baptism pools on the Temple Mount, they called them Mikvah pools. which they would use before interring the Temple area to be ritually clean! What did you think that John started something New. We are 8 thousand miles, and 2 Thousand years removed from the time that the Gospel was preached, and then canonized!!

 

[FHII]

1. Acts 2 does not say they received the HG at the laying on of hands. I think you are thinking of a different text (Probably when the Samaritans were brought into the church in Acts 8). I

Either I have to change my wroting style or you should read more catefully. I didn't say they received the HG by laying on hands in Acts 2. I said that happened in chapter 19.

Acts 19:2-6......

Wormwood, water was not mentioned. In fact they received th HG when Paul laid hands on them. Water was not mentioned in Acts 2.

I quoted chapter 19, then commented on it. Then I moved on to discuss chapter 2. I can see the confusion but I was referencing chapter 19.

Yes, but the HG comes at water baptism. Thus, baptism (in water) by faith in the name of Jesus causes the one baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. That is precisely what Peter says in Acts 2 and what Paul teaches elsewhere (as well as every church father in the early church)

Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. The eunuch in acts 8:38 didn't receive the HG when he came out of the water. Philip got caught by the spirit of the Lord... But what of the eunuch? As I mentioned, it was the laying on of hands... Not water.

3. I think there is proof that Paul had someone baptizing for him.

Actually there is. But you didn't bring up the hard proof. Acts 18:8 comfirms many Corinthians were baptized. This included Crispus, whom Paul did baptize. In any sense, it does say many were though it doesn't say they did it for Paul. Its enough of a statement, however, for me to retract my statement.

My mistake...

Paul assumes every Christian has been baptized. I can explore those with you if you like.

Do you mean Paul assumes every Christian has been bapized in water? Yea, sure. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

I guess I am stumped at what you mean by "necessary." Jesus commanded we make disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Matt 28. Surely you are not suggesting it is unnecessary to obey Jesus or that Jesus gave commands that were without merit.

Hold that thought for a brief moment...

Ok, well, to back up a step and clarify...do you believe Peter is talking about water baptism or a spirit baptism that has no connection with water in Acts 2?

Absolutely not. Again, water as a means of baptism was not mentioned in Acts 2.

This was 2-3 months after Jesus gave that commandment in Matt 28. Correct? So it was fresh on his mind for sure. So let's look at what Jesus actually said:

Matt 28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jesus was not saying, "teach them and then baptize them." what he actually did was equate the teaching to the baptism. In other words, whem they taught they were baptizing. Thats how the statement reads, and Jesus did it twice in those two verses.

So did not Peter teach at the pentacost? Yes he did. They had to accept it for baptism to take place. EVEN IF they were actually bapized in water (again, it never says they were) Jesus commanded them through teaching to baptize.

 

[Wormwood]

Either I have to change my wroting style or you should read more catefully. I didn't say they received the HG by laying on hands in Acts 2. I said that happened in chapter 19.

Thank you for your response. My mistake. I did not see Acts 19 quoted there originally. I must have been sleepy .

I quoted chapter 19, then commented on it. Then I moved on to discuss chapter 2. I can see the confusion but I was referencing chapter 19.

FHII, I believe Acts 19 validates my view regarding the great importance of baptism and its relationship to receiving the Holy Spirit.
“and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.” (Acts 19:2–3, NIV84)
Notice how, when Paul discovers that they did not have the Holy Spirit, he immediately asks them about their baptism. They received John's baptism, not a Christian baptism...which confirms why they had not received the Holy Spirit. As a result, Paul baptizes them in the name of the Lord Jesus. It seems clear to me that this is referring to water. Because they are comparing John's baptism with baptism in the name of Jesus. Moreover, the Greek does not really place a span of time in between the baptism and Paul's hands being laid on them.
“ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἐβαπτίσθησαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἐπιθέντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ Παύλου [τὰς] χεῖρας ἦλθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπʼ αὐτούς, ἐλάλουν τε γλώσσαις καὶ ἐπροφήτευον.” (Acts 19:5–6, NA27)
It literally says, "But/and hearing this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, and laying the hand of Paul on them the Holy Spirit to come upon them." So there are two options here, as I see it. Paul laid hands on them when he baptized them and upon his hands being laid upon them and the act of baptism, the Spirit came. Or, they were baptized and Paul laid his hands on them and they received a gift from the Spirit (namely tongues) at the laying of his hands (we see this also with Timothy). Thus, it seems Paul perhaps gave them a gift which manifested the power of the Spirit in that moment...perhaps for confirmation that those who knew of John's message still needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus in order to be empowered with gifts from the Spirit. Either way, it seems evident to me that there is a very strong connection between the Holy Spirit and baptism both in this narrative and in Paul's understanding of how people received the Spirit.

Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. The eunuch in acts 8:38 didn't receive the HG when he came out of the water. Philip got caught by the spirit of the Lord... But what of the eunuch? As I mentioned, it was the laying on of hands... Not water.

First of all, the narrative of the Ethiopian eunuch says nothing about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we have two options. He received the Holy Spirit when he was baptized (and went off rejoicing). Or, he did not receive the Spirit at all and his faith and baptism were in vain..because it never says he received the Spirit. I think it is clear he did receive the Spirit at his baptism which is why he was so filled with joy. Second, this text also emphasizes the significance of baptism. Notice how on this very short trip and evangelistic encounter, Philip must have mentioned water baptism as a means of this person surrendering his life to Jesus. I mean, why else would the eunuch even mention baptism or be so eager to stop and be immersed in nearby water if Philip and the early church deemed it "unnecessary." Clearly Philip did not and included baptism in his call for this man to be converted, washed and raised with Christ.

Do you mean Paul assumes every Christian has been bapized in water? Yea, sure. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

This post is getting long, so I will just quote some texts and we can discuss them further in subsequent posts if you like...

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3, ESV)

“having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:12, ESV)

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27, ESV)

There are others that can be mentioned, but this will suffice for now. Again, saying "water isn't mentioned" is like saying there is no way to know what a person is breathing unless "air" is specifically mentioned. Water isn't mentioned because it is just superfluous. The author understands the readers do not need these details supplied because they are so obvious to them.

Absolutely not. Again, water as a means of baptism was not mentioned in Acts 2.

Ok, so you ARE saying the baptism in Acts 2 is possibly not related to water. So I stick with my original point that you and Sword ARE in fact, saying this. Thus, I return to my original argument that you cannot command someone to "repent and be baptized (by the Spirit)." If the Spirit is the agent baptizing (or not baptizing) people, then how is the audience supposed to obey Peter!? Seems unreasonable for Peter to command them to do something that belongs to the prerogative of the Spirit's will alone.

Matt 28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jesus was not saying, "teach them and then baptize them." what he actually did was equate the teaching to the baptism. In other words, whem they taught they were baptizing. Thats how the statement reads, and Jesus did it twice in those two verses.

I have never heard this kind of argument before. First, I think you are misreading Matt. 28. The Greek makes this passage much clearer because there is one command "make disciples of all nations" and three instructive participles...."going," "baptizing...." and "teaching..."

It is very evident that Jesus is not equating baptizing and teaching as two sides of the same coin. I mean, if this were the case, why would Peter command them to "repent and be baptized" in Acts 2? Hadn't he already "baptized" them with his teaching according to your assessment? Teaching and baptism are not the same thing. Nowhere in the NT do we see the two equated with one another. They are different participles describing different actions that are necessary to make disciples....going, baptizing, and teaching. Going indicates the outreach process. Baptism indicates the conversion process, and teaching indicates the maturing process of discipleship. All three are necessary.

 

[bbyrd009]

The author understands the readers do not need these details supplied because they are so obvious to them.

i'm curious then how one might withstand any "baptism of fire" from your pov, ty

 

[Wormwood]

Bbyrd,

That is a great question.
1) I dont think those who hold my position on water baptism would all have the same conclusion on the "baptism of fire."
2) There are three main views on what the nature of the baptism of fire. First, some equate the initial baptism of the Holy Spirit at conversion with the baptism of fire...indicating a purifying quality the HS brings to the converts life. Others, (primarily charismatics) would see the baptism of fire as a secondary baptism after conversion that imbues the individual with spiritual power and gifts. Finally, there is a view that the baptism of fire is contrasted with that of the Holy Spirit. In other words, some will be baptized in the Spirit, and others with hellfire. This final view is the one I hold.

The reason I hold this view is because I think when John the Baptist references the baptisms in the Holy Spirit and fire that the latter indicates a distructive rather than purifying force.

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Here it seems that the power of Jesus is being relayed as a separating force. Jesus holds both the power to grant the Spirit or fire. He gathers the wheat and the chaff he burns. So, while John's baptism was important, Jesus was the one with true authority...the authority to grant eternal life or eternal destruction.

 

[FHII]

Thank you for your response. My mistake. I did not see Acts 19 quoted there originally. I must have been sleepy .



FHII, I believe Acts 19 validates my view regarding the great importance of baptism and its relationship to receiving the Holy Spirit.
“and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.” (Acts 19:2–3, NIV84)
Notice how, when Paul discovers that they did not have the Holy Spirit, he immediately asks them about their baptism. They received John's baptism, not a Christian baptism...which confirms why they had not received the Holy Spirit. As a result, Paul baptizes them in the name of the Lord Jesus. It seems clear to me that this is referring to water. Because they are comparing John's baptism with baptism in the name of Jesus. Moreover, the Greek does not really place a span of time in between the baptism and Paul's hands being laid on them.
“ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἐβαπτίσθησαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἐπιθέντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ Παύλου [τὰς] χεῖρας ἦλθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπʼ αὐτούς, ἐλάλουν τε γλώσσαις καὶ ἐπροφήτευον.” (Acts 19:5–6, NA27)
It literally says, "But/and hearing this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, and laying the hand of Paul on them the Holy Spirit to come upon them." So there are two options here, as I see it. Paul laid hands on them when he baptized them and upon his hands being laid upon them and the act of baptism, the Spirit came. Or, they were baptized and Paul laid his hands on them and they received a gift from the Spirit (namely tongues) at the laying of his hands (we see this also with Timothy). Thus, it seems Paul perhaps gave them a gift which manifested the power of the Spirit in that moment...perhaps for confirmation that those who knew of John's message still needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus in order to be empowered with gifts from the Spirit. Either way, it seems evident to me that there is a very strong connection between the Holy Spirit and baptism both in this narrative and in Paul's understanding of how people received the Spirit.



First of all, the narrative of the Ethiopian eunuch says nothing about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we have two options. He received the Holy Spirit when he was baptized (and went off rejoicing). Or, he did not receive the Spirit at all and his faith and baptism were in vain..because it never says he received the Spirit. I think it is clear he did receive the Spirit at his baptism which is why he was so filled with joy. Second, this text also emphasizes the significance of baptism. Notice how on this very short trip and evangelistic encounter, Philip must have mentioned water baptism as a means of this person surrendering his life to Jesus. I mean, why else would the eunuch even mention baptism or be so eager to stop and be immersed in nearby water if Philip and the early church deemed it "unnecessary." Clearly Philip did not and included baptism in his call for this man to be converted, washed and raised with Christ.



This post is getting long, so I will just quote some texts and we can discuss them further in subsequent posts if you like...

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3, ESV)

“having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:12, ESV)

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27, ESV)

There are others that can be mentioned, but this will suffice for now. Again, saying "water isn't mentioned" is like saying there is no way to know what a person is breathing unless "air" is specifically mentioned. Water isn't mentioned because it is just superfluous. The author understands the readers do not need these details supplied because they are so obvious to them.



Ok, so you ARE saying the baptism in Acts 2 is possibly not related to water. So I stick with my original point that you and Sword ARE in fact, saying this. Thus, I return to my original argument that you cannot command someone to "repent and be baptized (by the Spirit)." If the Spirit is the agent baptizing (or not baptizing) people, then how is the audience supposed to obey Peter!? Seems unreasonable for Peter to command them to do something that belongs to the prerogative of the Spirit's will alone.



I have never heard this kind of argument before. First, I think you are misreading Matt. 28. The Greek makes this passage much clearer because there is one command "make disciples of all nations" and three instructive participles...."going," "baptizing...." and "teaching..."

It is very evident that Jesus is not equating baptizing and teaching as two sides of the same coin. I mean, if this were the case, why would Peter command them to "repent and be baptized" in Acts 2? Hadn't he already "baptized" them with his teaching according to your assessment? Teaching and baptism are not the same thing. Nowhere in the NT do we see the two equated with one another. They are different participles describing different actions that are necessary to make disciples....going, baptizing, and teaching. Going indicates the outreach process. Baptism indicates the conversion process, and teaching indicates the maturing process of discipleship. All three are necessary.

Wormwood,

I am going to skip responding to much of your post in the sense of a point-by-point nature. It'd be too long. I see one general difference in our POV. Anytime you see the word baptism, you immediately assume water is involved. Thus, I figure you are thinking in that mode.

My thinking is that isn't always so. I don't have any problem with it, but their is a better and more important baotism which is necessary.

I might have to do an exploration to count how many times a baptism hapoened where water was specifically mentioned. I will be conservative in saying it'll be 50/50. But i doubt that it woul really be that. I believe more baptisms are mentioned without water being mentioned.

But, there are things I do want to directly respond to:

He received the Holy Spirit when he was baptized (and went off rejoicing

Amen. I actually do believe he did because he rejoiced. Receiving the HS/HG too often is thought to result in speaking in tongues. Not always so. John the baptst leaped for joy when he heard the news in his mother's womb.

For brevities' sake, I didn't mention it, but I agree.

I have never heard this kind of argument before. First, I think you are misreading Matt. 28.

Well then you are getti g something new! Wormwood, I read the scripture word for word and every jot and tittle. I read it for what it says and not what tradition says it means. I think you are misreading it. The sentance structure is on my side. The tradition that baptize alway mens with water is on your side. But then again, its a matter of tradition vs. What was actually said.

I said go ahead and show me where Paul approved/assumed all Christians were baptized with water. I knew what verses you would go to. They all talk about being baptized into Christ and his death. Nothing of water mentioned.

Again, you are assuming that when there is a baptism.... Water is involved. I already talked about the baptism by fire. That alone (being what Christ Baptises us with) should be enough.

Wormwood, do you believe all baptisms are by water or with water?
Well all those verses about being baptised into Christ and his death are going to be calked into question by rhese next verses IF you believe every Baptism is by water:

Mat 20
[22] But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. [23] And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Wormwood, was Jesus talking about a water baptism here? I don't think he was. So if you think Paul was talking about a water baptism when he talked about being baptized into Jesus and his death... Maybe tou should reconsider.

 

[Wormwood]

FHII,

Thanks for your reply and condensing this a bit. I know I can get a bit wordy, but I try to be thorough to alleviate misunderstanding.

First, let me respond to the baptism and water point. Yes, I think baptism implies water, just as breathing implies air. The word simply means to dip or dunk. I mean, you can dip a person in ketchup, but that wouldn't be your first assumption if no such details are disclosed. I don't think the Scriptures are misleading. I think they are easily understandable to us and the early readers. Of course, if the context spells out specifics...such as "a baptism of fire" or where Jesus is clearly using metaphors about his death in referring it to drinking from a cup or being baptized, then it is evident that something else is intended. But again, this is not guesswork. I don't think we should dismiss water baptism because of some percentage of when the word "water" is actually used. I mean, John's baptism doesn't always specifically refer to water...but it is clear that it was done in water. Why should assume differently with Christian baptism...especially when water is often specifically mentioned?

When Paul encourages people to think back to their baptism...it seems clear to me he is calling them to remember a very concrete event. In fact, I think that is the beauty of baptism. We don't have to think back and say, "Hmmm...was that the Spirit or was I just caught up in an emotional situation?" Then, the reflection on such a spiritual "baptism" becomes more of a reflection on us and how we felt (or didn't feel). Water baptism is powerful because it rests its confidence in the promises of God. I know my sins were washed because God promises me they were washed in that moment.....regardless of whether or not I got chills, spoke in tongues, was filled with joy or whatever. I know I was buried and raised with Christ because God declares it to be so. That when I had faith and publicly declared Jesus as my Lord and was immersed, God promised to make me new. Thus, my hope is in God and his promises on a very concrete, physical, and memorable event. I think that is what Paul was calling people to remember. Its a really powerful thing.

Second, I agree that Spiritual baptism is what matters. The water means nothing if the Spirit is not moving. However, I believe God promises us that his Spirit will move when we are baptized as a result of our faith in Christ and plea to God for cleansing.

Can you explain to me how the sentence structure leads you to believe that Jesus is equating teaching with baptism?

 

[Peanut]

All saved persons have been made members of the Body of Christ by One divine baptism (this is baptism into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit). By that ONE BAPTISM, every member of the Body of Christ is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. In light of the statement concerning the "ONE BAPTISM" in Ephesians 4:5 and the statement in I Corinthians 1:17 that "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel", we affirm that water baptism has no place in God's spiritual program for the Body of Christ in this day of grace

I don't think anyone can invoke, we, as if their observations about in this case Baptism encompasses in accord the whole of the church in Christ. I think they are entitled to speak as self or, "I", only.

On the day of penticost. 3000 were saved. None were baptised none.

Acts 2:1-13

 

[FHII]

FHII,

Thanks for your reply and condensing this a bit. I know I can get a bit wordy, but I try to be thorough to alleviate misunderstanding.

First, let me respond to the baptism and water point. Yes, I think baptism implies water, just as breathing implies air. The word simply means to dip or dunk. I mean, you can dip a person in ketchup, but that wouldn't be your first assumption if no such details are disclosed. I don't think the Scriptures are misleading. I think they are easily understandable to us and the early readers. Of course, if the context spells out specifics...such as "a baptism of fire" or where Jesus is clearly using metaphors about his death in referring it to drinking from a cup or being baptized, then it is evident that something else is intended. But again, this is not guesswork. I don't think we should dismiss water baptism because of some percentage of when the word "water" is actually used. I mean, John's baptism doesn't always specifically refer to water...but it is clear that it was done in water. Why should assume differently with Christian baptism...especially when water is often specifically mentioned?

When Paul encourages people to think back to their baptism...it seems clear to me he is calling them to remember a very concrete event. In fact, I think that is the beauty of baptism. We don't have to think back and say, "Hmmm...was that the Spirit or was I just caught up in an emotional situation?" Then, the reflection on such a spiritual "baptism" becomes more of a reflection on us and how we felt (or didn't feel). Water baptism is powerful because it rests its confidence in the promises of God. I know my sins were washed because God promises me they were washed in that moment.....regardless of whether or not I got chills, spoke in tongues, was filled with joy or whatever. I know I was buried and raised with Christ because God declares it to be so. That when I had faith and publicly declared Jesus as my Lord and was immersed, God promised to make me new. Thus, my hope is in God and his promises on a very concrete, physical, and memorable event. I think that is what Paul was calling people to remember. Its a really powerful thing.

Second, I agree that Spiritual baptism is what matters. The water means nothing if the Spirit is not moving. However, I believe God promises us that his Spirit will move when we are baptized as a result of our faith in Christ and plea to God for cleansing.

Can you explain to me how the sentence structure leads you to believe that Jesus is equating teaching with baptism?

I appreciate your sesponse Wormwood.

One of the Strong's definition for "baptize" is to immerse. You can of course, be immersed in water. You can also be immersed in thoughts, study, a project or a particular lifestyle or idealogy. You and I are immersed in this conversation. I am not saying that definition applies all the time, but when we are speaking of being baptized (immersed) in Christ it makes sense and is the appropriate definition. It certainly makes more sense than being dipped in Christ.

I am not in agreeance that "baptize" is used metaphorically. A baptism by fire.... Well I hope the fire is a metaphor but I don't think the bapism is. I don't think there is anything metaphorical about being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

I am going to discuss Mat 28:19, but first I like your thought on Acts 1:5.

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

It seems to me by use of the word "but" that there is a contrast between water baptism and HG baptism. If that was already covered let me know.

Matthew 28:19-20 KJV
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Jesus did not say teach and baptize. He said "teach all nations, baptizing them...."

The second time is even stronger in that a colon was used. "Baptizing them in the name....[colon] teaching them...."

Colons are used to note a list, a quote, an expansion or an explanation. There is no list here, and Jesus was not quoting anyone.

An expansion? Not in is case. There is a second colon in verse 20 where it is an expansion ("...whatsoever I have taught you: and lo, I am with you alway..."). But this is clearly an explanation. It explains that they were to baptize by teaching.

 

[Helen]

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 John say Jesus would bapize with? The Holy Ghost and with fire.

So why don't we stop with the old baptism of John 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.

Excellent word...
It's always easy to say that, when one totally agrees with what is written! Ha!!

I stand on that too. ( though I was baptised in water many years ago- 'because our Pastor told us to '.... and that good too. )