Washed and clothed in Christ: The beauty of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism

[Danthemailman]

Do the biblical homework. What does the Bible itself identify as this baptism with the Holy Spirit mentioned by John the Baptist?

Don't merely repeat doctrinal positions, but do the exegetical work to see if those doctrinal positions are sound.

-CryptoLutheran

I already did my homework and I prefer to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on sound doctrine, as I demonstrated in post #15.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Baptism, or any other word, may carry various implications, but implications are not synonyms.

For example, I might say that I am enjoying a clear day. In what definite sense is this twenty-four hour period of time known as a day "clear"? Clear might imply cloudless weather. It also might imply mental acuity. It might imply traffic conditions (e. g. the road is clear).

Nevertheless "baptism" implies water in Ephesians 4:5.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nevertheless "baptism" implies water in Ephesians 4:5.

Baptism implies a bath, not to mention the burial of a corpse.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I already did my homework and I prefer to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on sound doctrine, as I demonstrated in post #15.

So what do you do with Acts 1:4-5 or Acts 11:15-16?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Baptism implies a bath, not to mention the burial of a corpse.

Being buried with Christ is part of what baptism means and does--it is also death with Christ, and being raised with Christ. We, through baptism, are united to Jesus Christ, united to His death, burial, and life.

If it were just burial then we wouldn't see everything else mentioned.

Further, not a bath, but bathing aka washing would be accurate. I bathe regularly, but I do so by having water poured on me via a shower. Various Jewish washing rituals are called "baptism" in the New Testament, including the "baptism" of hands, such as described in Mark 7 where βαπτίσωνται (verse 4) is used synonymously with νίψωνται (verse 3). This "baptism" of hands is a very specific procedure and ritual practice in Judaism called netilat yadayim.

Let's pay attention to the very clear fact that dipping, submerging, or immersing the hands is NOT what is done here. This is what Mark the Evangelist calls "baptism" and "washing" here, and is what the Pharisees were upset that neither Jesus nor His disciples did this before they ate food. They did not ritually purify their hands for consuming food, as prescribed by rabbinic tradition and Halakha.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nevertheless "baptism" implies water in Ephesians 4:5.

In much the same way that "bath" and "bathe" can be used in many ways in English, the ordinary sense always implies water. In order for me to mean something else with the word "bathe" or "bath" requires me to add additional information.

If I said "I bathed yesterday" the ordinary sense of my words would indicate to anyone that water is implied. If I meant that I sunbathed, I'd have added that information. I'd have said "I bathed in the rays of the sun", "I soaked in some sun while sunbathing" or something to that effect, where "bathing" is not being used in its ordinary, literal sense but in a less literal one. Nobody literally bathes in the sun, not only because it would be a really difficult trip to make, but obviously you'd get more than a sunburn if you tried to literally bathe in a massive ball of super-heated hydrogen. So clearly to "bathe in the sun" is non-literal, it is employing the word in an idiosyncratic way to compare experiencing the warmth and light of the sun as a kind of figurative "bath".

Likewise, if I wanted to indicate that some other medium was used other than water, it would be expected of me to offer that necessary information. If I said, "I went to the spa and had a bath" the implication is a normal bath, with water; on the other hand if I said "I went to the spaw and had a mud bath" then it's clear that I'm referring to some other medium of bathing other than water.

But in every instance I have to provide additional information and context, otherwise the plain and ordinary meaning of the words "bath", "bathe" (etc) implies water.

This is the same thing with baptism. Baptism implies water, when someone wanted to use the word to talk about something else then they add the additional information, they provide the needed extra context.

Nobody in the ancient world would read "baptism" and assume someone just got baptized in sunshine, or baptized in sand, or baptized in happy feelings.

When the Scriptures want to use "baptism" in a special way, they make it clear.

We should stick to the plain and obvious meaning of the text unless context suggests otherwise.

I get that recognizing that we could be wrong about what we believe is hard. It was hard for me, and it's never gotten easier. It took me literal years to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong about a lot of things, and that the Bible didn't support the things I thought it did. That when I dug deeper into Scripture, and when I tried to really take it seriously, that it often said things I had never heard before, never been taught before, and at times directly contradicted things I had been raised believing--that was hard. Not only was it hard, it also came with being an outcast among my peers.

To this day there are probably people from my home town who believe that I am an apostate drug dealer. Because those were the rumors that began to circulate about me after high school--I never did drugs, and I've certainly never sold drugs.

Challenging the norms of my upbringing, in a desire to learn more about my faith, literally resulted in me losing almost my entire network of friends, I lost my entire community of faith. Not because I left Jesus, not because I joined a cult, but because I started to ask questions and wanted to take the Bible seriously, because I started reading Church history and studying theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Being buried with Christ is part of what baptism means and does--it is also death with Christ, and being raised with Christ. We, through baptism, are united to Jesus Christ, united to His death, burial, and life.

If it were just burial then we wouldn't see everything else mentioned.

Further, not a bath, but bathing aka washing would be accurate. I bathe regularly, but I do so by having water poured on me via a shower. Various Jewish washing rituals are called "baptism" in the New Testament, including the "baptism" of hands, such as described in Mark 7 where βαπτίσωνται (verse 4) is used synonymously with νίψωνται (verse 3). This "baptism" of hands is a very specific procedure and ritual practice in Judaism called netilat yadayim.

Let's pay attention to the very clear fact that dipping, submerging, or immersing the hands is NOT what is done here. This is what Mark the Evangelist calls "baptism" and "washing" here, and is what the Pharisees were upset that neither Jesus nor His disciples did this before they ate food. They did not ritually purify their hands for consuming food, as prescribed by rabbinic tradition and Halakha.

-CryptoLutheran

They also baptized cups and pitchers and copper pots (verse 4). I don't know about you, but I would be very leery of eating food from dinnerware that had been lightly sprinkled with water.

Although modern technology has enabled Americans to cleanse themselves using showers, this was, and is, not a standard procedure for washing the human body. Hindus don't spend great effort and expense to go to Varanasi, to sit in a hotel room and take a shower with water from the city water department which was taken from the watershed of the Ganges River. Likewise, historically, Christians did not construct baptisteries the size of swimming pool so that a priest could dip his hand in the water and sprinkle a few drops on a person and call it a baptism.

 

[Danthemailman]

So what do you do with Acts 1:4-5 or Acts 11:15-16?

-CryptoLutheran

The same thing I do with Matthew 3:11.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Baptism implies a bath, not to mention the burial of a corpse.

In Ephesians 4:5 it is Christian baptism, which is not washing away filth from off the body. It is the washing (using water) of regeneration.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In Ephesians 4:5 it is Christian baptism, which is not washing away filth from off the body. It is the washing (using water) of regeneration.

That is one instance - the washing of regeneration. You may wish to read into it the RCC rite of Christian baptism, even as you might also wish to read baptism into John 3 - born of the flesh and born of the Spirit. That is your prerogative. I humbly differ with you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is one instance - the washing of regeneration. You may wish to read into it the RCC rite of Christian baptism, even as you might also wish to read baptism into John 3 - born of the flesh and born of the Spirit. That is your prerogative. I humbly differ with you.

I think John 3:5 mentions water. "... born of water and the Spirit ..."

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think John 3:5 mentions water. "... born of water and the Spirit ..."

born of flesh and born of the Spirit: flesh/water vs. Spirit/Spirit

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

born of flesh and born of the Spirit: flesh/water vs. Spirit/Spirit

John 3:5 says water & Spirit. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

 

[Danthemailman]

That is one instance - the washing of regeneration. You may wish to read into it the RCC rite of Christian baptism, even as you might also wish to read baptism into John 3 - born of the flesh and born of the Spirit. That is your prerogative. I humbly differ with you.

In regard to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels water with being born out of a mother’s womb and with flesh based on the answer of Nicodemus to Jesus. Simply stated in that case, two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth which is accompanied by amniotic water and the second is Spirit.

There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.

If "water" is defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again. So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, and we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

 

[bbbbbbb]

John 3:5 says water & Spirit. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

One must be born of the flesh (water) and one must be born from above by the Spirit. That which is of flesh is flesh and that which is of the Spirit is Spirit.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In regard to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels water with being born out of a mother’s womb and with flesh based on the answer of Nicodemus to Jesus. Simply stated in that case, two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth which is accompanied by amniotic water and the second is Spirit.

There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.

If "water" is defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again. So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, and we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

Thanks!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

One must be born of the flesh (water) and one must be born from above by the Spirit. That which is of flesh is flesh and that which is of the Spirit is Spirit.

Flesh has a different spelling and meaning from water. To enter the kingdom, one must be born of water and the Spirit.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Flesh has a different spelling and meaning from water. To enter the kingdom, one must be born of water and the Spirit.

It absolutely true that flesh and water are two different words. Neither flesh nor water are absolutely synonymous with physical birth. However, when Jesus drew his double analogy He obviously drew the comparison of physical birth with both flesh (the nature of the birth) and water, which is produced during the process of birth. There is not the slightest indication in the passage of water baptism. When one is born physically one is not baptized by the water present at birth. That is not at all Christian baptism. If it were, then every person on earth has been baptized by the simple act of being born.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

when Jesus drew his double analogy He obviously [then follows an interpretation provided by the post's author]

Let the Lord speak his words and leave the interpretation to each who reads as the Spirit guides and as the Church teaches. The dialogue between Nicodemus and the Lord, Jesus, is like this:
"[Nicodemus] said,

'Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one could perform the signs that you do unless God were with him.'​

Jesus answered: In all truth I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.
Nicodemus said,

'How can anyone who is already old be born? Is it possible to go back into the womb again and be born?'​

Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit; what is born of human nature is human; what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised when I say: You must be born from above. The wind blows where it pleases; you can hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

'How is that possible?' asked Nicodemus.​

Jesus replied, 'You are the Teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things! 'In all truth I tell you, we speak only about what we know and witness only to what we have seen and yet you people reject our evidence. If you do not believe me when I speak to you about earthly things, how will you believe me when I speak to you about heavenly things? No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man; as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him."
(John 3:2-15 NJB)

One must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Let the Lord speak his words and leave the interpretation to each who reads as the Spirit guides and as the Church teaches. The dialogue between Nicodemus and the Lord, Jesus, is like this:
"[Nicodemus] said,

'Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one could perform the signs that you do unless God were with him.'​

Jesus answered: In all truth I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.
Nicodemus said,

'How can anyone who is already old be born? Is it possible to go back into the womb again and be born?'​

Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit; what is born of human nature is human; what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised when I say: You must be born from above. The wind blows where it pleases; you can hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

'How is that possible?' asked Nicodemus.​

Jesus replied, 'You are the Teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things! 'In all truth I tell you, we speak only about what we know and witness only to what we have seen and yet you people reject our evidence. If you do not believe me when I speak to you about earthly things, how will you believe me when I speak to you about heavenly things? No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man; as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him."
(John 3:2-15 NJB)

One must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God.

Amen, amen. One must be born physically of flesh and water and one must be born from above by the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God.