The One Baptism

[Charlie24]

Amen! I have found the very first rule of good Bible study Rules is:

"Do All things Decently And In Order." (1Co 14:40) This I endeavoured
to do when I studied and posted 13 Bible baptisms.

I will pray for you that you will be encouraged and edified in your "Grace
growth," even as I was Many years ago, when I was Confused about this
very issue, but God Was Gracious, Leading me to His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided.

Grace, Peace, And JOY In serving our LORD Jesus Christ!

I pray that we all will take something from this study. I hope to learn from others and add more knowledge.

This subject is very important to our Lord, it involves life and death.

We must properly understand our salvation, it is the most important knowledge any man can possess.

 

[Taken]

Theory! Opinion! Whatever you want to call it!

Jesus plainly said BORN....that is not Theory, not Opinion...it’s a FACT!

 

[Enoch111]

Neither is water baptism necessary for salvation.

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is it necessary for sanctification? That is the real issue.

 

[Charlie24]

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is it necessary for sanctification? That is the real issue.

There were many things that Christ did that are not recorded in Scripture. We don't know all that Christ did and taught the apostles.

Christ did command that some be baptized, but He Himself did not baptize in water.

We don't read in Scripture where Christ said to baptize immediately as was the practice of the apostles.

If you notice in Scripture, the apostles water baptized immediately after one accepted Christ. It is believed that the actual spiritual baptism into Christ that Paul explained and that experience of salvation that took place in the spirit, is so expressed in water baptism that no time is wasted in keeping the two together, if for nothing else, but the same meaning.

The one is a mirror of the other, they are one in the same with our Lord. That is not to say that water baptism is necessary for salvation, but what it represents. They are knitted together one might say.

It is so knitted together, in like fashion, that no one will deny it, no one will say, I don't need water baptism, it is actually the mirror of our Lord's salvation seen by man. If this makes sense?

 

[marks]

It is so knitted together, in like fashion, that no one will deny it, no one will say, I don't need water baptism, it is actually the mirror of our Lord's salvation seen by man. If this makes sense?

That doesn't seem clear to me. It sounds like you are straddling the fence. Either water baptism is a necessary ingredient to salvation or it's not, right?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Water baptism was practiced by ancient Hebrews as a picture of departing from an old life, and fully immersing into a new life. They would baptize the gentiles who became Jews. The Pharisees for so offended, this suggestion that they were in the same position as the sinners of the Gentiles who had to be baptized to become one of the Chosen People.

Other cultures also practiced water baptism in a similar religious fashion.

It was a picture of what they didn't actually have then - a real new life - but what we have now. And this is what the Bible teaches, that our one baptism is into Christ - the real new life.

Much love!

 

[Charlie24]

That doesn't seem clear to me. It sounds like you are straddling the fence. Either water baptism is a necessary ingredient to salvation or it's not, right?

Much love!

That is what I'm trying to express, the closeness, but a distinction.

The theologians express this closeness as close as any two things could possible be!

There is no fence post straddling going on here!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is it necessary for sanctification? That is the real issue.

It does help to certify your decision for Christ by making a public statement like Water Baptism. That seems to be the thing that Jesus was communicating.

At the same time it is notable that Water Baptism was downplayed, as well, by both Jesus and Paul. So yes, I believe it aids in our commitment to righteousness, by openly displaying that the old man is dead, and now we intend to live by Christ alone.

It was a symbolic acts carried out as an initiation ceremony into Christianity. And I very much believe in it. I have a step son and a grand son planning on getting Water Baptized this month!

 

[Enoch111]

We don't read in Scripture where Christ said to baptize immediately as was the practice of the apostles.

That is completely false. So think hard and carefully about this statement of Christ just before His ascension: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

1. Did Christ make believing almost synonymous with baptism in the above verse?
2. And did Peter make repentance almost synonymous with baptism in Acts 2:38?
3. And should not these things be treated as having tremendous significance?

So why are you naively looking for something like this: "And Jesus said, believers must be baptized immediately after conversion"? Did God not give Christians the ability to draw conclusions from the things already stated? And did Peter not believe with all his heart that water baptism is A COMMANDMENT OF CHRIST, and therefore commanded Gentiles to be baptized as soon as they received the gift of the Holy Ghost?

ACTS 10: PETER SETS THE EXAMPLE FOR ALL CHRISTIANS
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

 

[Charlie24]

That is completely false. So think hard and carefully about this statement of Christ just before His ascension: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

1. Did Christ make believing almost synonymous with baptism in the above verse?
2. And did Peter make repentance almost synonymous with baptism in Acts 2:38?
3. And should not these things be treated as having tremendous significance?

So why are you naively looking for something like this: "And Jesus said, believers must be baptized immediately after conversion"? Did God not give Christians the ability to draw conclusions from the things already stated? And did Peter not believe with all his heart that water baptism is A COMMANDMENT OF CHRIST, and therefore commanded Gentiles to be baptized as soon as they received the gift of the Holy Ghost?

ACTS 10: PETER SETS THE EXAMPLE FOR ALL CHRISTIANS
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Oh boy! It should be plain to see that the apostles baptized immediately to the point of baptizing at midnight.

As far as we know Christ never told them "baptize right now" although we see some example of it.

I was explaining the reason why they were baptized so close together, according to the theologians.

 

[Enoch111]

As far as we know Christ never told them "baptize right now" although we see some example of it.

I already quoted Mark 16:16 to confirm that Christ in fact told them to baptize "right now" (and it is confirmed in Matthew 28:19). So why are you insisting on the opposite?

 

[Charlie24]

I already quoted Mark 16:16 to confirm that Christ in fact told them to baptize "right now" (and it is confirmed in Matthew 28:19). So why are you insisting on the opposite?

I have read that verse countless times, I have never seen the urgency that you see, as in right now!

 

[marks]

That is what I'm trying to express, the closeness, but a distinction.

The theologians express this closeness as close as any two things could possible be!

There is no fence post straddling going on here!

This still sounds like yes and no.

?

One baptism? Or two inextricably linked? Blended together?

Much love!

 

[Charlie24]

I already quoted Mark 16:16 to confirm that Christ in fact told them to baptize "right now" (and it is confirmed in Matthew 28:19). So why are you insisting on the opposite?

Our church water baptizes a few weeks later, with the purpose of letting the new believer learn and see that water baptism is not salvation.

I disagree but tolerate! It could be explained on the spot, at the end of the service, and the person baptized as in Scripture. It is plain to see the believer is instantly water baptized, and for a reason. That reason is to keep the baptism into Christ in harmony with water baptism, I beleive

 

[marks]

Our church water baptizes a few weeks later, with the purpose of letting the new believer learn and see that water baptism is not salvation.

I disagree but tolerate! It could be explained on the spot, at the end of the service, and the person baptized as in Scripture. It is plain to see the believer is instantly water baptized, and for a reason. That reason is to keep the baptism into Christ in harmony with water baptism, I beleive

I think that creates confusion, just like Paul indicated,

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 KJV
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.
18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The preaching of the cross. Water baptism takes away from that. People become confused.

Mind you, I don't object to water baptism, but I think we need to understand baptism into Jesus Christ.

Much love!

 

[Charlie24]

This still sounds like yes and no.

?

One baptism? Or two inextricably linked? Blended together?

Much love!

I am getting ahead of myself in explaining this.

When Paul taught on the one body, the one faith, the one baptism, he was calling a timeout, let's get this straight.

It was in the name of unity concerning the faith, what is actually involved in our salvation.

There are several baptisms in Scripture, but only one that involves our immediate salvation.

 

[marks]

I had a pastor who taught about water baptism as providing "a touchpoint for your faith", which was what it did for me.

I was not a Christian, and my sister invited me to be baptized with her at an event in 2 weeks. During those two weeks I discovered that the Bible was in fact truth, and I knew that meant I needed to start obeying Jesus. And it seemed to me the best way to do this was to accept my sister's invitation, and I was baptized alongside her. Double dip.

Much love!

 

[Charlie24]

Our church water baptizes a few weeks later, with the purpose of letting the new believer learn and see that water baptism is not salvation.

I disagree but tolerate! It could be explained on the spot, at the end of the service, and the person baptized as in Scripture. It is plain to see the believer is instantly water baptized, and for a reason. That reason is to keep the baptism into Christ in harmony with water baptism, I beleive

After we explain all that leads to this point you may see it differently.

I think that creates confusion, just like Paul indicated,

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 KJV
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.
18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The preaching of the cross. Water baptism takes away from that. People become confused.

Mind you, I don't object to water baptism, but I think we need to understand baptism into Jesus Christ.

Much love!

After we bring to light all that leads to the baptism into Christ, you may see things differently.

That's why it's so confusing! There are several explanations that must be observed to understand it.

We can't bake a cake by first placing the empty pan in the oven!

 

[ScottA]

Nope, there is no passage, not one, in Scripture that supports Spiritual Baptism. You say that you have already shown me but I sincerely do not recall you giving ONE passage that supports Spiritual Baptism.

Please repeat the passage(s) that support Spiritual Baptism.

Thank you.

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
​

No water.

 

[marks]

After we explain all that leads to this point you may see it differently.


After we bring to light all that leads to the baptism into Christ, you may see things differently.

That's why it's so confusing! There are several explanations that must be observed to understand it.

We can't bake a cake by first placing the empty pan in the oven!

Myself, I don't find this confusing, I find it very simple, and these things are all simply stated in the Bible. I just believe what these say, and they all seem to fit together.

Much love!