Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

Some Christians hold to the belief that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. I recently held to this belief but I reverted back to my old position that we are to water baptize others and be water baptized.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please use Scripture to back up your position.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

May God’s grace, peace, and love be unto you all.

 

[Marymog]

In fact, it was the Protestants that have helped us to have our Bible today.


(To be continued in my next post):

Really? The Protestant Reformation "helped us to have our Bible today"? How so? All the Reformers had the Bible in their day as you do today. So your statement makes no sense. The reformers all disagreed with each other on the interpretation of that same Bible they had 500 years ago as you do today. Due to their disagreement, we now have multiple denominations with multiple interpretations of that same bible.

What we really have since the Protestant Reformation is multiple truths from the same text. That has led to multiple denominations with each telling the other denominations that they have false doctrine with false teachers. The only thing the Protestant revolution did 500 years ago was to divide, instead of unit, Christianity.

 

[Marymog]

Why I believe the Bible teaches Spirit baptism replaces water baptism
(and why I believe water baptism is not for salvation):

#1. 1 Corinthians 1:17. Paul says, I come not to baptize but to preach the gospel in 1 Corinthians 1:17. First, some have even said that baptism is a part of the gospel, but Paul distinguishes between the two here in this verse. Second, if baptism was for salvation or an unquestionable necessary act, then why would Paul say this? Paul even says he was thankful to God that he did not baptize any of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:14). In fact, Paul says he only baptized two people (Crispus and Gaius), and Stephanas’ household (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). Yet, Paul says we are to follow his example, as Christ is his example (1 Corinthians 11:1). So if we are to follow Paul’s example: We should also say that we thank God to other believers that we have not baptized them like he did with the Corinthians. We should also follow Paul’s example and say to other believers, “I come not to baptize but to preach the gospel” (Just as he did). Three, if baptism was salvific, then replace the word “baptize” with the word “saved” in 1 Corinthians 1:17. That would mean Paul would be saying that he comes not to save anyone but he comes to preach the gospel (Which would not make any sense). Yes, I heard the argument before that baptizing others was not Paul’s main office or function and others baptized for him, but I get no real indication of this according to Scripture.

#2. Luke 16:16 says, “ The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Christians are not under the Old Law (Romans 6:14) (Acts of the Apostles 13:39). Granted, believers in the New Covenant are under the Laws of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21). Water baptism appears to have come by John the Baptist seeing Jesus identifies water baptism with him (See: Acts of the Apostles 1:5). Seeing John the Baptist was of the Old Law and ways (Luke 16:16), it would be logical that this would end seeing we are not under the Law (I.e. the Old Law).

#3. Hebrews 9:10 says, “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” The word “washings” is the Greek word “baptismos” (βαπτισμός). In other words, Hebrews 9:10 is saying that diverse baptisms (washings) were imposed on believers until the time of reformation. Meaning, water baptism will give way or pass away until the time of reformation (Which means that Spirit baptism is now the one and only true baptism for today).

#4. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” This is a dry baptism being described here and not a water baptism. This is exactly what we see happen with Cornelius.

#5. Acts 18:24-26, and Acts 19:1-7 both teach that there was a more perfect way than John’s water baptism (i.e. Spirit baptism). In John 19, certain disciples found at Ephesus did not know of the Holy Spirit. Paul asked them what baptism did they partake of. They said John’s baptism (Which was water baptism). It would not make sense for Paul to rebaptize them in water again if they were already first water baptized. I believe Paul baptized them by laying his hands on them and giving them the Spirit (Which is the same thing we see happen with the people of Samaria who did not first receive the Spirit when they were water baptized) (Acts 8:17-18) (Note: Why did the Spirit not originally come upon them and just simply exclude Simon? I am sure he could have been exposed in another way).

#6. Nowhere will you find in New Testament Scripture about how GENTILE Christians must be water baptized in order to be saved or how they need to be water baptized in order to be spiritually buried with Christ (as a part of a future command or present tense declaration of something they must do). Nothing is ever said that the Gentiles have to be water baptized to be saved or to receive the remission of sins. Acts 15 says that the Gentiles are not under the Law (And water baptism was given to John the Baptist - who was said by Jesus that the Law was until John).

#7. What you will find in Scripture is a description of what happened in the past involving Gentile Christians doing in the past already (Which is not the same thing as a present future declaration of Gentile believers being told to do so for that reason). I say this because this was the time of reformation when the Jewish Christians did not have perfect understanding yet (See Paul’s mistake in going back to the Old Law under the influence of the Jewish Christian elders in Acts 21:17-26, and Peter being rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:11-21).

#8. Romans 6:3-5, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:11-12 are all past accounts and not present tense commands given to Gentile believers by the apostle Paul (Who was the official minister to the Gentiles). These pieces of Scripture above here are indeed talking about being water baptized but this also included one being baptized into the Spirit. But yet we know water is not always necessary for Spirit baptism to take place because we see Cornelius and his household receive the baptism of the Spirit before they were even water baptized. So it’s not the water that baptizes them into the death of Christ, but it is the baptism of the Spirit that buries the old man and crucifies him making them a new creation in Christ. So why were the believers at Rome, Galatia, and Colossae water baptized? Again, I believe they were water baptized under the Jewish OT ways during the time of reformation (When the apostles' understanding was not full on this point yet. They still needed to come out from under the Old Law or ways). So Paul was speaking to what they had done under imperfect knowledge. For the Spirit can come into a believer’s life even if their knowledge is not perfect when they first come to the Lord. Some believe water baptism is the initial point of salvation. If this is the case, let me ask you: Were you radically changed spiritually when you received Jesus as your Savior or when you were water baptized? If you were truly baptized spiritually into his death in water baptism, then there should be that testimony and the testimony of others (who held to good doctrine). But I know Cornelius would not give that testimony.


(To be continued in my next post):

You present a very interesting theory. Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

If your theory were true then why do the earliest Christian historical writings all disagree with your writings, 2,000 years later? Were the NT Christians wrong and YOU are right?

Baptism in the Early Church

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Really? The Protestant Reformation "helped us to have our Bible today"? How so? All the Reformers had the Bible in their day as you do today. So your statement makes no sense. The reformers all disagreed with each other on the interpretation of that same Bible they had 500 years ago as you do today. Due to their disagreement, we now have multiple denominations with multiple interpretations of that same bible.

What we really have since the Protestant Reformation is multiple truths from the same text. That has led to multiple denominations with each telling the other denominations that they have false doctrine with false teachers. The only thing the Protestant revolution did 500 years ago was to divide, instead of unit, Christianity.

No offense, but I believe history when it talks about how Catholics used to kill even their own if they attempted to take the Scriptures to read for themselves. This is part of the reason why the Catholics wanted to kill King James and the translators of the KJB with a super bomb. They wanted to kill them while they were translating it. Seeing that did not work, the Catholics changed tactics. Instead of killing people, they set out to take the Word of God away from people without taking a life. The Vatican made a league with the United Bible Societies in the formation of the Nestle and Aland Critical New Testament Greek text (Which is where all Modern Bibles come from). They used the Westcott and Hort text (Who were also into Catholicism) as one of their stronger textual sources. This was all an attempt to get men away from the King James Bible and it worked. Even the Catholic book that mentions forbidden works says that the King James Bible is among the list of forbidden works to read. Of course, they changed this so as to hide what they were really up to. But the book of forbidden writings still exists. I can show a scan of it for you here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Catholics even have told me that I cannot understand Scripture. They said I need a Catholic priest to help me to understand it. This again is a modern day tactic to get people away from the Word of God. That’s why you don’t know that statue bowing is idolatry, and why praying to the dead saints is Necromancy.

 

[Marymog]

No offense, but I believe history when it talks about how Catholics used to kill even their own if they attempted to take the Scriptures to read for themselves. This is part of the reason why the Catholics wanted to kill King James and the translators of the KJB with a super bomb. They wanted to kill them while they were translating it. Seeing that did not work, the Catholics changed tactics. Instead of killing people, they set out to take the Word of God away from people without taking a life. The Vatican made a league with the United Bible Societies in the formation of the Nestle and Aland Critical New Testament Greek text (Which is where all Modern Bibles come from). They used the Westcott and Hort text (Who were also into Catholicism) as one of their stronger textual sources. This was all an attempt to get men away from the King James Bible and it worked. Even the Catholic book that mentions forbidden works says that the King James Bible is among the list of forbidden works to read. Of course, they changed this so as to hide what they were really up to. But the book of forbidden writings still exists. I can show a scan of it for you here. Catholics even have told me that I cannot understand Scripture. They said I need a Catholic priest to help me to understand it. This again is a modern day tactic to get people away from the Word of God. That’s why you don’t know that statue bowing is idolatry, and why praying to the dead saints is Necromancy.

Hmmmm.....What man taught you that history? The Church didn't kill people for ready Scripture. That is a complete lie. You should learn Christian history instead of giving your opinion about it.I am Catholic and no one has tried to kill me for reading the bible for myself. As a matter of fact the church I go to has bible study soooooooooo whatever man taught you that lie....you can put it to rest.

Who taught you this garbage?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hmmmm.....What man taught you that history? The Church didn't kill people for ready Scripture. That is a complete lie. You should learn Christian history instead of giving your opinion about it.I am Catholic and no one has tried to kill me for reading the bible for myself. As a matter of fact the church I go to has bible study soooooooooo whatever man taught you that lie....you can put it to rest.

Who taught you this garbage?

I said it happened in the past. So obviously Catholics of today are not going to kill you today. I had the source link on another Christian forum, but it appears to have been removed and I cannot find it. No doubt this was probably removed due to Catholics trying to re-write history.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have not run into too many who believe that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. But there is one website that is popular that believes this. Their old website used to be called TruthorTradition.com.

 

[Marymog]

I said it happened in the past. So obviously Catholics of today are not going to kill you today. I had the source link on another Christian forum, but it appears to have been removed and I cannot find it. No doubt this was probably removed due to Catholics trying to re-write history.

Lol...yup, catholics removed your source

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Lol...yup, catholics removed your source

Yeah. It may be me. Sorry about that. I got ahead of myself there. It’s just odd. I was able to find the source quickly before with a Google search and now it is not available. I also posted it on a recent Christian forum and cannot find it with a search under my username. I am able to find other related topics no problem by searching on the forums. But this topic appears to be missing. Is it possible that it is not a Catholic cover up? Sure. Does that mean the Catholic Church has not covered up things that make them look bad? No. Does that mean that the source I had was lying or that I was misunderstanding it? No. I don’t believe so. Especially when it fits the rest of history involving their approach to the Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ah, I found it on my Google documents.

Praise the Lord!

The Catholic church forbidden the regular people from reading or studying the Holy Bible on their own. This rule within the Catholic church only increased into the Middle Ages and after, which also included the restriction on a person translating the Holy Scriptures into their native tongue. This later turned out to having them become burned if they possessed the Scriptures.

Proof?

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Catholic church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

I do have another source for how the Bible was restricted by the Catholic Church involving others.
In this forum source, they provide Catholic source quotes, as well.

Source:
Was Bible possesion banned by the Catholic Church

This restriction of the Bible all plays into why they wanted to stop the translation of the King James Bible (Which was the first Bible that was to go out to the common man on a massive scale).

 

[RLT63]

Hmmmm.....What man taught you that history? The Church didn't kill people for ready Scripture. That is a complete lie. You should learn Christian history instead of giving your opinion about it.I am Catholic and no one has tried to kill me for reading the bible for myself. As a matter of fact the church I go to has bible study soooooooooo whatever man taught you that lie....you can put it to rest.

Who taught you this garbage?

He's right about some of it. People who translated the Bible to English were imprisoned, strangled and burned. William Tyndale - Wikipedia

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Owning a Bible was actually made a criminal offence by the Catholic church. In 860, Pope Nicholas I, sitting high on a throne built specially for the occasion in the town square, pronounced against all people who expressed interest in reading the Bible, and reaffirmed its banned public use (Papal Decree). In 1073, Pope Gregory supported and confirmed the ban, and in 1198, Pope Innocent III declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by "soldiers of the Church military."(Diderot's Encyclopedia, 1759).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Anyways, if anyone has anything to share on the OP. It would be appreciated.

May God bless all the faithful in Christ Jesus.

 

[RLT63]

.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe it is important to believe everything in our Bible and to obey the Lord. The biblical evidence or case for Spirit baptism seemed to be convincing, but I am not so sure I can hold to that position any more. I want to please the Lord in all things in regards to the faith and not be said by the LORD that I did not believe His Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think we need to recognize that faith without works is how we are initially saved. Then after that point: We continue in the faith with the works of faith.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I want to believe all of God’s Word in the New Testament. I want to obey in what He commanded to the early church as much God can give me strength to do.