112358
Well-Known Member
- Mar 1, 2018
- 511
- 160
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I believe I stated in an earlier post that there could be reason to allow that Mark 16 does not refer to water baptism because Jesus was speaking with the apostles, and Holy Spirit baptism was reserved for them and their delegates alone. The problem is that "He who believes" includes many more than the apostles. So I think it's safe to say that the reference is to water baptism. Paired with the fact that the apostles proceeded to baptize everyone in sight (in water), I don't think it's a stretch. That's also the reason why any assertion that Mark 16 is "suspect" is itself quite suspect. But we can throw Mark 16 out if you wish. You still have to deal with Acts.It would be unwise to base any proof on MARK.16:9-20. Even if so based, "is baptized" may refer to "baptized by the Holy Spirit" and not "baptized in water".
Good thing Peter told us exactly what he meant with regard to the antitype reference. It was the water that saved Noah. The antitype is not water vs. Spirit baptism. It is the fact that in Noah's case the water saved his physical life (and wiped the physical life of sinners off the face of the planet), and that in our case the water saves our spiritual life (and wipes the spiritual life of sin off the face of the planet) Romans 6. Thus, "the answer of a good conscience toward God". The reference is specifically to spiritual life, not spiritual baptism. Be reminded that all this is coming from the same apostle that commanded water baptism at Pentecost for the remission of sins, would not deny water to Cornelius (AFTER he believed), and again proceeded to baptize everyone in sight after the Lord gave him the great commission.Actually, 1Peter.3:21 was referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit by the Lord Jesus Christ who truly cleans/sanctifies His people spiritually, which could not be accomplished by the antitype or symbolic water baptism. ...
But toss this one out as well if you wish. There sits the entire book of Acts still. And the fact that the apostle Paul himself apparently needed to be baptized to wash away his sins. AFTER he obviously believed, unless his blindness had not convinced him.
So I think it unwise to conclude anything other than the essential nature of baptism in water with respect to salvation. It was good enough for Jesus, the apostles, and everyone who was becoming a Christian in the early days of the church. So it's good enough for me.
Last edited:
Upvote
0