Baptism question - with a twist

[Flipper]

I saw this posted by another LCMSer on an ecumenical messageboard. I've never thought of it like this and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts.

MT 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Hi everyone!

In my Sunday School class we're studying the Gospel of Matthew and in preparing my lesson on the baptism of Jesus, a question popped up in my tiny little brain: Did those who were baptized by John need to be baptized again into Jesus's death and resurrection?

If you believe that baptism is symbolic this question may not make sense. I believe baptism is efficacious, meaning it actually accomplishes something. It appears to me that John's baptism WAS one of symbolism, an outward sign of inward repentance, but as we see in Romans 6, being baptized now unites is with Jesus's death and resurrection. Hence my question; after Jesus died and rose, were John's 'baptiz-ees' (for lack of a better word) 'grandfathered in' to the efficiacy of the baptism available to us today? Or did they need to be baptized again, this time with the cleansing water of Jesus's baptism?

My thought was that if God commanded John the Baptist to baptize the first time around, then coming from God that should be good enough to not need to be repeated. Can someone give me a more educated thought on this?

 

[filosofer]

I saw this posted by another LCMSer on an ecumenical messageboard. I've never thought of it like this and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts.



My thought was that if God commanded John the Baptist to baptize the first time around, then coming from God that should be good enough to not need to be repeated. Can someone give me a more educated thought on this?

Take a look at Acts 19.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Take a look at Acts 19.

specifically

4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

 

[DaRev]

Take a look at Acts 19.

specifically

4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

This would also be the case of those baptized by Jesus' disciples as recorded in John 3:22-24.

 

[RadMan]

This would also be the case of those baptized by Jesus' disciples as recorded in John 3:22-24.

The apostles didn't have authority to baptize since they hadn't received the Holy Spirit yet or been called? Is that what you are referring to?

 

[DaRev]

The apostles didn't have authority to baptize since they hadn't received the Holy Spirit yet or been called? Is that what you are referring to?

Christian baptism, as the Scripture defines in Romans 6 and Acts 2, was not instituted until just prior to Jesus' ascension. The baptism that the disciples were performing was the same as that of John the Baptist.

 

[Flipper]

Thanks!

 

[Lupinus]

One must also remember baptism was quite common in Jewish tradition as a ritual cleansing. I find that keeping that in mind helps people understand the difference. When we hear baptism today we automatically think of the type of baptism we receive today, without keeping in mind baptism had been practiced for quite some time.

 

[DaRev]

One must also remember baptism was quite common in Jewish tradition as a ritual cleansing. I find that keeping that in mind helps people understand the difference. When we hear baptism today we automatically think of the type of baptism we receive today, without keeping in mind baptism had been practiced for quite some time.

True. The Greek word "baptizo" means "to wash" and there were numerous cleansing rituals in ancient Jewish culture. There was also a form of baptism used for non-Jewish converts to Judaism (of that time), which is why the Pharisees and others were a bit perplexed at John the Baptizer's practice of baptizing Jews when only Gentiles were "cleansed" in that manner.

 

[LilLamb219]

Christian baptism, as the Scripture defines in Romans 6 and Acts 2, was not instituted until just prior to Jesus' ascension. The baptism that the disciples were performing was the same as that of John the Baptist.

I learned something today! Thanks

 

[Constantine_Orthodox]

True. The Greek word "baptizo" means "to wash" and there were numerous cleansing rituals in ancient Jewish culture. There was also a form of baptism used for non-Jewish converts to Judaism (of that time), which is why the Pharisees and others were a bit perplexed at John the Baptizer's practice of baptizing Jews when only Gentiles were "cleansed" in that manner.

Actually, "baptizo" means "to immerse", "nipto" is the Greek word for "to wash".

 

[LilLamb219]

That is not correct because they "baptized" big furniture like tables (in the new testament) and those were NOT immersed. They were washed clean.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Actually, "baptizo" means "to immerse", "nipto" is the Greek word for "to wash".

There are several passages in the NT alone that refute the idea that baptizo means only to immerse.

But...if you'd like to talk about that more, by all means please start a thread in the General Theology area. Right now you're in the Lutheran forum and you are not allowed to "teach" or debate here.

Congregation Forums
Forum members who are not a member of that denomination may not debate in that denomination's area. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.​

 

[DaRev]

Actually, "baptizo" means "to immerse", "nipto" is the Greek word for "to wash".

There are several Greek words that mean "to wash with water". Baptizo, nipto, katharizo, rhantizo, pluno... And while each may have specific distinct meanings, they are also synonomous within certain contexts.

It is true that baptizo means "to dip, immerse, submerge (sink)" it also means "to wash or cleanse with water". Rhantizo means "sprinkle, cleanse, wash". Katharizo means "wash, make clean, cleanse". Pluno means "wash, purify". Nipto means "wash, make clean". Each has a distinct meaning to be used in specific contexts, but they also have a synonomous meaning, "to wash with water". The point being that the verb "baptizo" does not exclusively mean "to dip or immerse".

 

[Constantine_Orthodox]

There are several passages in the NT alone that refute the idea that baptizo means only to immerse.

But...if you'd like to talk about that more, by all means please start a thread in the General Theology area. Right now you're in the Lutheran forum and you are not allowed to "teach" or debate here.

Congregation Forums
Forum members who are not a member of that denomination may not debate in that denomination's area. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.
​

Excuse me, it wasn 't my intention to teach or to debate!!! As a native speaker, I just wanted to clarify the meaning of the word...

There are several Greek words that mean "to wash with water". Baptizo, nipto, katharizo, rhantizo, pluno... And while each may have specific distinct meanings, they are also synonomous within certain contexts.

It is true that baptizo means "to dip, immerse, submerge (sink)" it also means "to wash or cleanse with water". Rhantizo means "sprinkle, cleanse, wash". Katharizo means "wash, make clean, cleanse". Pluno means "wash, purify". Nipto means "wash, make clean". Each has a distinct meaning to be used in specific contexts, but they also have a synonomous meaning, "to wash with water". The point being that the verb "baptizo" does not exclusively mean "to dip or immerse".

You know your Greek

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Excuse me, it wasn 't my intention to teach or to debate!!! As a native speaker, I just wanted to clarify the meaning of the word...

You know your Greek

as you can see, we don't really need clarification, especially when the clarification is far narrower than it needs to be.

Lutherans don't believe that one must be fully immersed to be baptized. We believe that one can be immersed, but we also believe that sprinkling in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the same baptism.

 

[Flipper]

Excuse me, it wasn 't my intention to teach or to debate!!! As a native speaker, I just wanted to clarify the meaning of the word...

I have no idea where she got the idea you were debating. Anyway as the writer of the OP I don't care if anyone from other denominations want to comment (I said comment, like what you did, not debate). If it's way too off base from Lutheran teachings or even a little off-base, the really smart Lutherans here will set it straight.

Thanks for your insight!