Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Illuminator]

It’s why before 1943 the Roman Catholic Church did not allow their own people to study the Scriptures.

This is a slanderous LIE, and your Google god is wrong.

Pope Francis: Read the Bible as often as you check your cellphone

Italy was once an ally of Germany in 1940 (Note: You can see photos of Hitler with Catholic priests).

Yes, anti-Catholic bigots love to circulate the photo, I've seen it several times. It's a pre-war photo. Here's what they never mention:

Pope Pius XI signed a concord with Germany to secure the rights of Christians in the country, because the Vatican recognized what a threat Hitler and his henchmen were to religious liberty. This was not an endorsement of the Nazi Party or its philosophy (it may be remembered that America also had treaties with Germany before the war broke out).

When Hitler went back on the deal and began abrogating the civil rights of Christians, the Vatican responded by issuing the only encyclical ever written in German (Mit Brennender Sorge or "With Burning Anxiety"), concerning the horrors of the National Socialist German state. This encyclical was smuggled into Germany (it would never have been allowed in, had the Nazis known it was coming) and read at all the parishes on the same day.

The Encyclopedia of Catholic History (by Matthew Bunson) notes: "the encyclical was a strong denunciation of Nazism, noting that the Nazis had broken several points of the concordat and were actively involved in anti-Catholic and anti-Christian programs, such as the removal of the OT [Old Testament] from schools and the promotion of the so-called German National Church (essentially Lutheran). The encyclical was read from the pulpit of every German church on March 21, 1937

​

In 1943: Italy turned against their German friends due the oppression they experienced themselves by the Nazi party. In other words, I believe that it is possible that the oppression by the Germans could have helped the Catholic Church to see that they were oppressing their own people by not allowing them to read and study the Bible. But some (not all) in the Catholic Church I have talked with still have this mentality that Christians should not read or study the Bible without the aid of a Catholic priest. But 2 Timothy 2:15 says study to show yourselves approved unto God a work man that need not be ashamed.

Have you not an ounce of discernment? Must you swallow down whole every lie printed against the Catholic Church? How "Christian" is that? Do we do that to you???

 

[Davy]

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.

NO, baptism by The Spirit does not replace water baptism.

Lord Jesus set the example of being water baptized, submersed under water. So we should do it also, since He set that example for us.

Per The New Testament, some received The Holy Spirit before being baptized of water. And others had been baptized only with the baptism of John, not yet hearing of Jesus. And when they were told about Jesus, then they were baptized in Jesus. Then there were others (in Samaria) that had been baptized in Jesus, but had yet to receive The Holy Spirit, and didn't until hands were laid upon them.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

NO, baptism by The Spirit does not replace water baptism.

I am fully convinced now that water baptism is for Christians today.
So I agree with you.

Lord Jesus set the example of being water baptized, submersed under water. So we should do it also, since He set that example for us.

Good point. I agree.

Per The New Testament, some received The Holy Spirit before being baptized of water. And others had been baptized only with the baptism of John, not yet hearing of Jesus. And when they were told about Jesus, then they were baptized in Jesus. Then there were others (in Samaria) that had been baptized in Jesus, but had yet to receive The Holy Spirit, and didn't until hands were laid upon them.

I agree.

Also, nowhere does the Bible condemn water baptism. So those who believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism are only believing that way based on a loose connection of verses (at the expense of others). Plus, God never condemned water baptism in the name of Jesus after Pentecost. The practice was widespread by many among those who are called Christian (as we read in NT Scripture).

 

[LoveofTruth]

NO, baptism by The Spirit does not replace water baptism.

Hello, God bless

The baptism with the Holy Ghost ( given by Jesus when people have Jesus Christ in them) is not the saving baptism, for the saving baptism is the baptism into Christ or into one body Gal 3 and 1 Cor 12;13 etc etc etc. The Baptism with the Spirit does in some respect replace water baptism though. As John and Jesus said, consider

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

Mark 1:8 "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

Lord Jesus set the example of being water baptized, submersed under water. So we should do it also, since He set that example for us..

No, this reasoning iss not sound. Jesus was also circumcised as a Jewish boy, was under the law and kept the law in all aspects for us, as many of the jewish believers in Acts did even though they did not need to for a long time. If you don't see that read Acts 2 going to the temple and Acts 15 and Acts 21, where the thousands of Jews that believed were still going to the temple system and under the law and customs of the Jews and zealous for them and did animal sacrifices still even though they did not need to. So if we say, "well, they did it in the New testament so we should to, then you have to circumcise Jewish believers still as Paul allowed in Acts 16 and keep the law and dietary laws as peter did and other etc etc. Which we don't have to do now in the New Covenant.

Remember jesus was made under the law. The OT is faded away decayed and at that time , after Christ rose it was a time of reformation and ready to vanish.

These are clear facts from scripture. So far none here have been able to refute them or give answers. usually believers have never been taught these things in scripture and when confronted with them they have to reexamine all their theology and rearrange ideas etc. But this is the same thing they need to do about water baptism and all the diverse washings and carnal ordinances, that can never make the conscience clean or perfect about the New Life in Christ and the gospel reality that has now come..

Per The New Testament, some received The Holy Spirit before being baptized of water. And others had been baptized only with the baptism of John, not yet hearing of Jesus. And when they were told about Jesus, then they were baptized in Jesus. Then there were others (in Samaria) that had been baptized in Jesus, but had yet to receive The Holy Spirit, and didn't until hands were laid upon them.

The main point in these examples is that they had Christ in them. To hear of the name Jesus Christ and his work is how a person gets the baptism with the Holy Ghost. Each of those examples has a longer discussion around them.

It is clear from the facts of scripture that water baptism was part of John's OT washings that was to fade away as was the entire Old Covenant. But the Jewish believers still followed these things for many many many years, and dd not let them go so easily. We see this all through the book of Acts and other places.Again, these are facts clear from scripture. Yes, they do clash with many denominations of man and their doctrines. But let everything that can be shaken be shaken so all we see is the glorious Christ/\.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I am fully convinced now that water baptism is for Christians today.
So I agree with you.

Here are some of the facts we can consider when proving that water baptism was not needed in the New Covenant and clearly not part of the gospel or a add on to be saved by works as part of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4, no water baptism added or circumcision or Sabbath keeping or the Mosaic law or the Lord Supper etc).

1. The water baptism of John was not new, the Jews had many washings and diverse washings way before John. The idea of dunking under water was part of Israels history. Even the Halakah law of the Jews had full submersion for gentile converts. The leaders of Israel even had arguments about the gentiles being sprinkled or dunked in the history. I know the extra biblical history is not a strong fact. But it can be noted.

2. Jesus said in Acts 1 that Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.". Showing the end of water baptism and bringing in a new baptism. This is clear to the unbiased reader.

3. The jewish believers at the beginning were still in many ways connected to the Old Covenant that was fading away and decaying ready to vanish slowly (Hebrews 8) .

8:13 "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

They were still following the law and customs of the Jews for a long time and God seemed to allow this for a time as part of the time of reformation.

9:9 "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; "
9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

4. The Jewish believers clearly were still keeping the law and sacrificing and circumcising Jewish believers and (some in error) even tried to bring gentiles into this. Again, these are the facts. Acts 10, 15 and 21.

10:14 "But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."


2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Paul

Paul did not circumcise Titus a gentile and took issue with that. Showing that the ministry to the gentiles was different than the ministry to the Jews in some respects. This may have been because the jews were still in the time of reformation and transition from the old to the new and it took time for them to come out. This is seen iBut

But when it came to a Gentile being circumcised he stood against it.

15:1 "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."

21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
...
21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended,..."

5. We see Paul also had circumcised even though he was not called to do that.

16:3 "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek."

But we see Paul not allowing this with the Gentiles, specifically Titus. This shows that the ministry to the Jews and to the Gentiles as a bit different in some areas. This may be because the Jews were still coming out of the Old Covenant and the gentiles did not need to be brought under it and then brought out again. Also the Jews were in the time of reformation.

2:3 "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:"

We see the different aspects clearly mentioned in scripture here, even though there is one gospel, we do see a distinction to each group .


"2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;"

6. The many verses about the water baptism in Acts seem to be directly connected to the Jewish issue and they still under the law and Old Covenant for a time and still following Johns water baptism. We know that for example, Peter was still following Johns water baptism and perhaps the Halakah law of the jews in Acts 10, 11. He was reminded when he baptized the gentiles, (who were already saved and filled with the Spirit) that John baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

7. The verses that seem to be used by some groups to say that water baptism is for salvation and part of the saving gospel, do not say such a thing. A long discussion can be had over verses like Mark 16:15,16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21 etc. I have discussed these things before and can discuss any verses if needed. We are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done.

8. The one baptism, must be the saving baptism that all have and this is not water baptism as can be shown in scripture. This saving baptism is into Christ by the Spirit 1 Cor 12:13, Galatians 3 etc.9, the worship in the NT is in spirit and truth, not like the old testament worship of the temple system with diverse washings and carnal ordinances and sacrifices. It is spiritual.Thos who worship God must worship him in spirit and in truth.

9. Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel 1 Cor 1. This shows that the gospel and water baptism are not part of each other and that water baptism is not part of the gospel. If water baptism was part of the great commission, then Paul would not have said such a thing being sent to preach the gospel. We cannot add words to his statement such as "I was not sent "primarily" to baptize. etc. Yes, Paul mentions a few he did water baptize but then pushes all that talk aside and says "Besides, i know not ..."

1:16 "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. "
1:17 "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

This last part about the cross of Christ being made of none effect, Strongly implies that any work men add to the gospel would deny the work of Christ death for their sin. we cannot add to the work of Christ for salvation. Paul uses similar words with the circumcision that was pressed on believers also. They both are similar to many today, water baptism some say is a sign of the New Covenant and the circumcision group say it was a sign of the covenant. Consider Paul's words and how similar this is. And remember that cross of Christ when applied to our lives and when we are crucified with Christ denies any flesh works for salvation. It puts to death the deeds of the body and any dead works we can try to do ( read Hebrews 9 again).

6:12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
6:13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

10.there are more facts but these should do for now.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I feel stronger now that water baptism is not for the New Covenant and that the jewish believers were still following in some respects the Old Testament washings and Johns water baptism tan before after these discussions. So far the facts seem strong in this area. Especially the Jew and Gentile issue which often is not mentioned in this discussion.

May the Lord help us all to see clearly and if in anything any of us is not accurate to reveal even this to us.

God bless

 

[Davy]

Hello, God bless

The baptism with the Holy Ghost ( given by Jesus when people have Jesus Christ in them) is not the saving baptism, for the saving baptism is the baptism into Christ or into one body Gal 3 and 1 Cor 12;13 etc etc etc. The Baptism with the Spirit does in some respect replace water baptism though. As John and Jesus said, consider

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

Mark 1:8 "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

No, this reasoning iss not sound. Jesus was also circumcised as a Jewish boy, was under the law and kept the law in all aspects for us, as many of the jewish believers in Acts did even though they did not need to for a long time. If you don't see that read Acts 2 going to the temple and Acts 15 and Acts 21, where the thousands of Jews that believed were still going to the temple system and under the law and customs of the Jews and zealous for them and did animal sacrifices still even though they did not need to. So if we say, "well, they did it in the New testament so we should to, then you have to circumcise Jewish believers still as Paul allowed in Acts 16 and keep the law and dietary laws as peter did and other etc etc. Which we don't have to do now in the New Covenant.

Remember jesus was made under the law. The OT is faded away decayed and at that time , after Christ rose it was a time of reformation and ready to vanish.
....

I disagree, you should study Acts 10 where The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles that Peter preached The Gospel to, and Peter then recommended water baptism for them.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here are some of the facts we can consider when proving that water baptism was not needed in the New Covenant and clearly not part of the gospel

First, it needs to be established that Pentecost was a call back to the Jew to salvation. The Jews already believed in God. So when we encounter Gentiles involving water baptism, they were first saved by God's grace and received the Spirit before being water baptized. So baptism is not the first point of contact of faith which is falsely taught by the Catholic church, and the Church of Christ.

Second, yes, it is true that water baptism is not a part of the gospel because Paul makes a distinction between the two in 1 Corinthians 1:17. That does not mean water baptism in the name of Jesus was not required. For we see even Paul water baptize the jailor and his household in Acts 16:31-34 as a part of the faith. If it was not necessary, then he would not have done so. According to scholars (if it is true): Paul wrote the 1st Corinthians letter near the end of his three-year ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19:21–22). In Acts 19:1-7, this is where we see Paul re-baptize in water the disciples of John in Jesus name. Why is it a water baptism? Well, in Acts 19:5 says they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Being baptized in Jesus' name was always associated with being baptized in water beforehand (See: Acts 2:38) (Acts 8:16) (Acts 10:48).

So in Acts 19: When Paul laid his hands on them in order to water baptize them in the name of Jesus, the Spirit came upon them. So yes. They received the Spirit before they were submerged in the water in the name of Jesus. This shows that we are saved by God's grace first. But that does not undo the ordinance of water baptism as set out by the Lord Jesus Christ in the great commission.

However, nowhere do we see in the New Testament where an apostle had laid hands on others (without water baptism) and they did so in the NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the authority (the name) many today do not want to submit to. They want to rationalize things their way.

Baptism in water in the name of Jesus was never said to be a part of the Old Law ever. John's water baptism did not include being baptized in Jesus' name and John's baptism did not include being also baptized into the Spirit.

or a add on to be saved by works as part of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4, no water baptism added or circumcision or Sabbath keeping or the Mosaic law or the Lord Supper etc).

Nowhere does the New Testament specifically condemn water baptism in the name of Jesus ever. Even the apostle Paul practiced water baptism and he only was glad he baptized a few because the Corinthian believers were either saying they were of Paul or of Apollos (Meaning, the issue was that if they were of Paul, then they should have been baptized in his name) when they should be baptized in the name of Jesus. That was the whole point why he said what he did in 1 Corinthians 1:17.

As for salvation: I believe the Bible teaches two aspects of salvation.

#1. Being saved by God’s grace through faith initially (without works) (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Titus 3:5) (Romans 4:3-5) (Romans 11:6).
Note: Paul spoke primarily of Initial Salvation (if you were to closely examine the context of that chapter), and he was also fighting against the heresy of which I call, “Circumcision Salvationism.” This was the false belief that said you had to be circumcised first in order to be initially saved - See Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, Acts 15:24, and Galatians 5:2.

#2. Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13) (Romans 8:13) (Galatians 6:8-9) (2 Corinthians 7:1).​

Works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3) (2 Thessalonians 1:11) is a part of the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Believers will also put away sin, obey the Lord’s commands in the New Testament, and live holy lives as a part of the Sanctification Process. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says that God has chosen to salvation through the Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth. If one is not in the Sanctification of the Spirit (purifying themselves in this life), then they are not going to be saved in the end (When either they die or when Christ comes to take His bride). For if it was all just believing the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and nothing else, then one can think they can just sin and still be saved and or be their own lord or master. Sin still separates believers from God. Believers must confess and forsake sin in order to have mercy (Proverbs 28:13).

If works of faith play no part later in our salvation (as a part of our Sanctification) then why does James say faith without works is dead? (James 2:17). Why does James say we are justified by works and not by faith alone? (James 2:24).
Granted, I am not saying that a believer who did not get a chance to be water baptized in the name of Jesus in this life is not saved.
The point here is a willing heart of obedience. Are they willing to obey the Lord Jesus or do their own thing?

Matthew 10:40 says,
“He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

This truth still applies even after Pentecost.
So when others received the apostles and their teachings (which would include water baptism), then they were in essence receiving Jesus Christ and His teachings. Jesus told them to be water baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This again is the name (singular) that represents all three persons of the Godhead or Trinity (Which is the name of Jesus). For Jesus is the name above all names (Philippians 2:9). So the disciples took this to mean as water baptizing in the name of Jesus (Which was not a mistake).

1. The water baptism of John was not new, the Jews had many washings and diverse washings way before John. The idea of dunking under water was part of Israels history. Even the Halakah law of the Jews had full submersion for gentile converts. The leaders of Israel even had arguments about the gentiles being sprinkled or dunked in the history. I know the extra biblical history is not a strong fact. But it can be noted.

Jesus Himself was water baptized by John the Baptist as an example for us to in following in His steps. We are told to follow Jesus (1 John 2:5-6).

2. Jesus said in Acts 1 that Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.". Showing the end of water baptism and bringing in a new baptism. This is clear to the unbiased reader.

First, we learn that there were 500 brethren who had seen the risen Jesus all at once according to 1 Corinthians 15:6. This means that these believers who seen the risen Christ ascend into Heaven in Acts 1 were the ones who would be baptized into the Spirit in Acts 2. It’s why they spoke in tongues and could understand each other. The other Jewish men present at Pentecost (numbering at about 3,000) did not receive this Spirit baptism first. They were told to repent and be baptized and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If things were as you say, then why didn’t God correct Peter before having 3,000 new converts water baptized? God surely was able to communicate to Peter in a vision later. In other words, if your viewpoint is correct: It would make it appear like God wanted everyone to make a mistake at Pentecost (Which is the birth of the church). But I am not buying that. It just does not add up. Granted, I know the apostles made mistakes later, but I just don’t think that would be possible when they are doing so with so many new converts and with it being the birth of the church.

Second, Spirit baptism alone was not what happened for new Jewish converts at Pentecost. Jesus was merely making a distinction of a different kind of baptism for the 500 so that they would be able to recognize it. I believe Jesus was saying John only baptized in water and he did not baptize into the Spirit. For we know that the 3,000 at Pentecost who did repent and were water baptized received the gift of the Holy Spirit (i.e. Spirit baptism). So it was both a water baptism and a Spirit baptism. Jesus did not say to not water baptize anymore.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

3. The jewish believers at the beginning were still in many ways connected to the Old Covenant that was fading away and decaying ready to vanish slowly (Hebrews 8) .

8:13 "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

They were still following the law and customs of the Jews for a long time and God seemed to allow this for a time as part of the time of reformation.

9:9 "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; "
9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

In Hebrews 8:13: I believe it is giving an account of when Jesus told His disciples about how the fruit of the vine in the cup was the New Testament (New Covenant) representing the shedding of His blood. It was then at the Lord’s supper that the Old Covenant was ready to vanish away when Jesus said these words. For the temple veil was torn from top to bottom at His death (thereby ending the Old Covenant officially).

In Hebrews 9:10, this reformation is the death of Jesus upon the cross (Which ended the Old Covenant and began a New Covenant).

The context supports this.

Hebrews 9:16-17
“For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”

The testator here is Jesus Christ. For example: It’s like a will (testament) a father would write for their son in the event that the father may die and he can then will his son his property and or goods because the father loves his son. The will (testament) does not go into effect until the father dies. So it is with Jesus. When He died, the New Covenant (New Testament) went into effect. This is the context and nothing is mentioned about the destruction of the temple in 70AD in this chapter. In fact, if you were to re-read Hebrews 9:10 with your line of thinking here, that would mean God was imposing upon believers the Old Law until the temple destruction in 70AD. That is simply not possible because the Old Covenant ended with Christ’s death. God would not impose the Old Law upon them when it was no more. So Christ's death upon the cross is the true reformation being spoken of in Hebrews. It’s not the temple destruction in 70AD. Please re-read the chapter and pray about it. No context here supports your line of thinking here, my friend.

4. The Jewish believers clearly were still keeping the law and sacrificing and circumcising Jewish believers and (some in error) even tried to bring gentiles into this. Again, these are the facts. Acts 10, 15 and 21.

10:14 "But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."

But notice this not too far off from Pentecost (i.e. the birth of the church).
In fact, this works against you seeing God was communicating to Peter and not allowing him to just run off into error doing his own thing.
God communicated with the top apostles. So to say they continually walked in error is problematic at best. It is to suggest that the apostles were not worthy to teach anyone because they were making errors themselves.

2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Paul

Paul did not circumcise Titus a gentile and took issue with that. Showing that the ministry to the gentiles was different than the ministry to the Jews in some respects. This may have been because the jews were still in the time of reformation and transition from the old to the new and it took time for them to come out. This is seen iBut

But when it came to a Gentile being circumcised he stood against it.

15:1 "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."

The issue with Titus being circumcised was that it had to do with certain Jews who spied out their liberty in Christ Jesus. This is connected with Acts 15 in that they had to be circumcised in order to be saved. But when it came to Timothy, Paul had him circumcised not for salvation but so that he may be able to move about the Jewish region for evangelistic efforts. This does not mean God gave his apostles time to come out from under the Old Law (with the Jewish believers being distinct from the Gentile believers). There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. God is not a respecter of persons. The 613 Laws of Moses ended at the cross and the New Covenant began. There was no exception clause for the Messianic Jew to be justified by the Laws of Moses (between Pentecost and the temple destruction in 70AD).

Paul says in Acts 13:39 that you cannot be justified by the Laws of Moses. Paul says this to both Jew and Gentile.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
...
21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended,..."

First, in Acts 21:26, the English word “should” is an archaic word in this instance, and it is merely saying “shall.”

King James Bible Dictionary - Reference List - Should

Meaning, I shall go down to store today. It does not mean I am saying I should go down to the store (by our modern understanding of that word). “Should” in the King James Bible is an archaic word in this particular usage.

Second, the key to understanding Acts 21, is... 1 Corinthians 9:19-22:

“Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law. To those without the law I became like one without the law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-22) (Berean Standard Bible).​

So again, it does not mean Paul is guilty in going back to the Old Law in seeking to be justified by it (or that God allowed Paul a moment of reformation time for him to understand). Paul was taught by the Lord Jesus Himself and God communicated to him many times.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

6. The many verses about the water baptism in Acts seem to be directly connected to the Jewish issue and they still under the law and Old Covenant for a time and still following Johns water baptism. We know that for example, Peter was still following Johns water baptism and perhaps the Halakah law of the jews in Acts 10, 11. He was reminded when he baptized the gentiles, (who were already saved and filled with the Spirit) that John baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

No. Peter was baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as instructed and this also involved the receiving of the gift of the Spirit.
John's baptism did not include these two elements.

7. The verses that seem to be used by some groups to say that water baptism is for salvation and part of the saving gospel, do not say such a thing.

Truth is not established by particular groups or churches. Truth is established by what God's Word says.
Again, Pentecost was a Jewish audience and thus they were already supposed to know God and they were being called back by repentance.
Groups like the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ ignore this obvious context for their own ends.

We are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done.

Titus 3:5 is in light of Initial Salvation. Read the context. Also, again... Paul was fighting against the heresy of which I call, ‘Circumcision Salvationism.” This is the false belief that said you had to be circumcised first to be initially saved (See again Acts 15). Galatians 2:3 says:
“But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:” Galatians 5:2 says, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” In other words, Titus 3:5 is condemning “Works ALONE Salvationism” with no grace whatsoever (because of the false heresy of Circumcision Salvationism). See again Titus 2:3, Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:1, Romans 4:9-12, Galatians 5:2, Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, and Acts of the Apostles 15:24.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

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.

I don’t think it replaces it so much as…water baptism is a picture OF the spirit of the matter. Water baptism speaks of the true baptism in spirit and truth. Just like physical circumcision speaks of the cutting away of the hardness of our heart and marriage speaks of becoming one with God through the giving of the Spirit.
It could be looked at like…water baptism is the letter and Spirit baptism is the spirit.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I disagree, you should study Acts 10 where The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles that Peter preached The Gospel to, and Peter then recommended water baptism for them.

I have read and studied Acts in great detail, ever verse. This chapter shows that Peter was still in some measure following the law and the customs of the Jews the Halakah law and he was not understanding the Gentiles are to be preached to and to come into the church, even though this was spoken of in the great commission of Matthew 28 to Peter as well as others. If Peter did not fully grasp the scope of Matthew 28 to the Gentles, perhaps he also needed more understanding in the baptism in the name, or the baptism into Christ by the Spirit, which was not water baptism.

Peter also aw the Gentiles were baptized with the Holy Ghost after hearing about Jesus. Then Peter , after that, seemed to be in a questioning state and asked who can forbid water. He did have them water baptized, but if you read the next chapter 11, when Peter was going over the story he then remembered the words of the Lord in Acts 1 where he spoke of John indeed baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost... This was what Peter heard in his mind to clarify to him perhaps that the Gentiles did not need to go int the Jewish program and be water baptized and then later to bring them out of this. We see this event is also spoken of in Acts 15 again where the gentiles were still an issue for the church and some wrongly were arguing if the gentiles should keep the law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved. Peter had retold the Gentiles being saved by grace and not to put a burden on them which they also couldn't bear of the Mosaic law and circumcision. It was agreed in that time that the Gentiles should not keep the law pr be circumcised.

It is also seen that many thousands of the believing the Jews were still following the law and Jewish customs many years after Christ death . We see this in Acts 10, 15 and in Acts 21 when Paul went to Jerusalem. There is no denying this even though some have not even spoken of this truth in many assemblies.

you should read and study Acts 21 and consider that chapter very carefully. This was many many years after Christ death.

So

 

[LoveofTruth]

I don’t think it replaces it so much as…water baptism is a picture OF the spirit of the matter. Water baptism speaks of the true baptism in spirit and truth. Just like physical circumcision speaks of the cutting away of the hardness of our heart and marriage speaks of becoming one with God through the giving of the Spirit.
It could be looked at like…water baptism is the letter and Spirit baptism is the spirit.

Sorry fiend, not one scripture for such a assumption. And there is not two baptisms that make up the one baptism. Jesus spoke of Johns water baptism of the past and the new baptism with the Spirit of the present time in Acts 1. Not the tow making up the one.There is one Lord one faith one baptism, not two Lords (The trinity is still one Lord but in three persons), two faiths or two baptisms (making up the one)

please show chapter and verse for this

Also read 1 Cor 1 where Paul pushes aside all baptism talk and thanks God he did so little of it and says that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Then he says "not with the wisdom of words, "lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.". Many words have been spoken and various ideas of what water baptism is and typifies, Some may have some meaning but so much has been spoken by different groups which divides many.

Also read what the saving gospel is in 1 Cor 15:1-4. Here Paul does not add water baptism to the gospel or to be done after the preaching of the gospel to make a person "really saved" by works. No it is not by works of righteousness that we have done. All works flow from the Spirit and are spiritual which manifest from the life of Christ in us in the physical. These things start as things like love, mercy , compassion joy etc. Like fruit from a tree.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I feel stronger now that water baptism is not for the New Covenant and that the jewish believers were still following in some respects the Old Testament washings and Johns water baptism tan before after these discussions. So far the facts seem strong in this area. Especially the Jew and Gentile issue which often is not mentioned in this discussion.

May the Lord help us all to see clearly and if in anything any of us is not accurate to reveal even this to us.

God bless

Yes. I’ve thought that water baptism for the remission of sins was helpful for the Jewish people to move from animal sacrifices for remission of sins to water baptism. They had been steeped for so long in all of the ceremonial cleansings and sacrifices and what they must do that they needed something to…DO to make the transition.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Sorry fiend, not one scripture for such a assumption. And there is not two baptisms that make up the one baptism. Jesus spoke of Johns water baptism of the past and the new baptism with the Spirit of the present time in Acts 1. Not the tow making up the one.There is one Lord one faith one baptism, not two Lords (The trinity is still one Lord but in three persons), two faiths or two baptisms (making up the one)

please show chapter and verse for this

Also read 1 Cor 1 where Paul pushes aside all baptism talk and thanks God he did so little of it and says that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Then he says "not with the wisdom of words, "lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.". Many words have been spoken and various ideas of what water baptism is and typifies, Some may have some meaning but so much has been spoken by different groups which divides many.

Also read what the saving gospel is in 1 Cor 15:1-4. Here Paul does not add water baptism to the gospel or to be done after the preaching of the gospel to make a person "really saved" by works. No it is not by works of righteousness that we have done. All works flow from the Spirit and are spiritual which manifest from the life of Christ in us in the physical. These things start as things like love, mercy , compassion joy etc. Like fruit from a tree.

I don’t think you’ve understood me, but it’s okay.
I see water baptism a bit like saying, the Kingdom of heaven is like or…I see it as sort of a parable of the spirit of the matter. A physical, temporal thing that speaks of the true and eternal thing.

But I would never discourage anyone from getting a water baptism. We aren’t to convince those still weaker in trust to go against their conscience. That would be a disastrous use of my freedom in Christ. But I also would speak up if someone was being bullied about it when they were not bothered in their conscience by not having it.

 

[Davy]

I have read and studied Acts in great detail, ever verse. This chapter shows that Peter was still in some measure following the law and the customs of the Jews the Halakah law and he was not understanding the Gentiles are to be preached to and to come into the church, even though this was spoken of in the great commission of Matthew 28 to Peter as well as others.
....

I completely disagree again. Your claim to having read Acts 10 does not agree with the actual Acts 10 Scripture.

In Acts 10, God showed Peter that The Gospel was to go to the Gentiles also, even with the example of the vision of the blanket of unclean animals, which Acts 11 reveals was a pointer to that very subject about the Gentiles and The Gospel. And when Peter preached Christ resurrected to them, The Holy Spirit fell upon those Gentiles that were present, as written there in Acts 10:34-44.

Even in the next Acts 11 chapter, Peter is witnessing to the believing Jews at Jerusalem how the Gentiles received The Gospel, and The Holy Spirit.

Acts 11:17-18
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
KJV

 

[Davy]

Here are some of the facts we can consider when proving that water baptism was not needed in the New Covenant and clearly not part of the gospel or a add on to be saved by works as part of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4, no water baptism added or circumcision or Sabbath keeping or the Mosaic law or the Lord Supper etc).

1. The water baptism of John was not new, the Jews had many washings and diverse washings way before John. The idea of dunking under water was part of Israels history. Even the Halakah law of the Jews had full submersion for gentile converts. The leaders of Israel even had arguments about the gentiles being sprinkled or dunked in the history. I know the extra biblical history is not a strong fact. But it can be noted.

2. Jesus said in Acts 1 that Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.". Showing the end of water baptism and bringing in a new baptism. This is clear to the unbiased reader.

3. The jewish believers at the beginning were still in many ways connected to the Old Covenant that was fading away and decaying ready to vanish slowly (Hebrews 8) .
....

Sorry, but you are clearly trying to delegate the New Testament commandment to be water baptized as being part of the 'old covenant' law. That's just NOT going to work.

Mark 16:16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
KJV

The Greek for "baptized" above means to submerse under water, so it is not pointing to the Holy Spirit baptism, but to water baptism. And that verse does not say one who is not baptized (in water) is damned, but only those who "believeth not" shall be damned.

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
KJV

It should be obvious to anyone reading the above that Peter's command to be baptized under the New Covenant is NOT... about the old covenant that could NOT save.

Acts 8:36-38
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"
37 And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
KJV

The New Testament is full of those type examples where water baptism is directly associated with belief on Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

So I don't know 'where'... you are coming from, but it certainly IS NOT ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE in God's New Testament Word.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Yes. I’ve thought that water baptism for the remission of sins was helpful for the Jewish people to move from animal sacrifices for remission of sins to water baptism. They had been steeped for so long in all of the ceremonial cleansings and sacrifices and what they must do that they needed something to…DO to make the transition.

Remember that water is not for remission of sins. without the shedding of blood there is no remission. The Ot types were shadows and figures of a future reality. We read these verses about remission of sins

Heb 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Rom 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

Act 10:43 "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins"

Heb 10:18 "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." Note here that when John the baptist was alive there was still sacrifices going on and long after that. But after Christ death there was no need for them.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"

Heb 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Paul seemed to think a person can be saved by God’s grace through faith without works in Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:3-5, Romans 11:6. So your argument is not with me but with Paul. In other words, you are guilty of the same thing that Perpetual Belief Alone Salvationists make in that they are not believing various sets of verses at face value in what they plainly say. There has to be a way to believe the words of Paul and also Jesus & James. We must harmonize the words of both Jesus and Paul. I believe the best way is to understand that Paul was talking many times about being initially saved vs. Jesus, & James who clearly referred many times to living out our faith (in the Sanctification Process as a secondary aspect of salvation) after we were initially saved by God’s grace. This is the only logical conclusion in believing the whole counsel of God’s Word vs. going down one wrong end of the spectrum (Making it either an abuse of God’s grace vs. Making it all about works and no grace ever).

Protestant Perpetual Belief Alone Salvationists generally fall into abusing His grace (whereby the warnings of Jesus about sin potentially destroying our souls is nonexistent).

Works Alone Salvationists (like the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ) falsely teach faith can never exist without works when we see that Hebrews 11:3 says,

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Hebrews 11:3).

Yes, faith is described as something we also do like Noah preparing an ark to the saving of his house (Hebrews 11:7), but faith is also a belief, too; For Abraham believed in the promise of God’s words in that his descendants will be as the stars of the sky (See: Romans 4:3, Romans 4:5, Genesis 15:3-6). This belief (which is a belief alone) was imputed to him as righteousness.

Nowhere ever did Paul eliminate obedience from becoming saved, Rom 6:16-18 Paul required obedience to God in becoming saved but did not require works of merit (Eph 2:9) or works of the OT law (Rom 4:5) to becoming saved. Faith is DEAD apart from obedience to God and that is why there is not a single example on NT salvation by belief alone, that is, belief apart from doing God's will in repenting of sins, confessing with the moth and submitting to water baptism.

Faith onlyists miss the mark by refusing to accept that obedience to God and works of merit are two completely different things. For instance, they quote Rom 4:5 out of context, isolating that verse from all other verses and CLAIM that verse eliminates all works of all kinds while never proving that interpretation or clearing up all the contradictions that interpretation creates.