The Doctrine of Baptisms.

[Bible Highlighter]

Your personal experiences cannot be presented as normative. If you wish to discuss this topic find someone with some letters after their names in the appropriate fields. Otherwise please don't lecture on linguistics.

No. That does not make any sense. Then again, jobs (scholars) are on the line in this field of study, so I understand why you are defending your viewpoint. You hold the scholars in high regards. I don’t. So any experience by others like in my case must be discounted. Again, logic dictates that you don’t go to Ethiopia to learn Chinese anymore than you would go to America to learn Greek.

"Most scholars" and "the top Greek grammarians" is too vague.

As for top Greek grammarian: Well, I already gave you a clue as to what I was talking about before in a previous post on how to find out what I was talking about. It’s searchable.

 

[Der Alte]

No. That does not make any sense. Then again, jobs (scholars) are on the line in this field of study, so I understand why you are defending your viewpoint. You hold the scholars in high regards. I don’t. So any experience by others like in my case must be discounted. Again, logic dictates that you don’t go to Ethiopia to learn Chinese anymore than you would go to America to learn Greek.

Tell that to educators all over the world. That is how it is done. I do not consider the unsupported opinions of anonymous people online to be credible.

As for top Greek grammarian: Well, I already gave you a clue as to what I was talking about before in a previous post on how to find out what I was talking about. It’s searchable.

I studied under some of the best. Empty claims of "top Greek grammarian" do not impress me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Tell that to educators all over the world. That is how it is done. I do not consider the unsupported opinions of anonymous people online to be credible.

They are credible at making money. There are schools out there that make it difficult for students to even learn making them search for information endlessly in frustration rather than just teaching them information with simplicity, repetition, and life application. Again, the rubber meets the road if you go to Greece today and you are able to write, speak, and read flawlessly with the locals without them ever correcting you. Then the next step is to be able to teach Greek people the advanced levels of their own language. Then the next step would be Koine Greek. You can call me anonymous all you like. What I said is simply the truth of what needs to happen. For example: It would be illogical for a person to just claim to know 1600’s English without knowing the Modern version of English we speak today. Learning Modern English will help to build real life applications whereby one will be able to learn properly 1600s English. So when I hear about how scholars just study Koine Greek and they don’t know how to order a pizza in Modern Greek, they really don’t know the language like they should.

I studied under some of the best.

Your boasting again. I believe Scripture teaches we are not to boast as believers.
For if we think we are something when we are nothing….

Empty claims of "top Greek grammarian" do not impress me.

It’s not an empty claim as I said before. I told you can search it on YouTube giving you the proper search phrase. The choice is yours to investigate it or not. I like to investigate things to increase my knowledge. But let all things I learn be given back to Christ and to His glory. Let all things be done to honor Jesus Christ. By ourselves we are nothing. Christ is everything. Without Him, we can do nothing.

 

[Der Alte]

They are credible at making money. There are schools out there that make it difficult for students to even learn making them search for information endlessly in frustration rather than just teaching them information with simplicity, repetition, and life application. Again, the rubber meets the road if you go to Greece today and you are able to write, speak, and read flawlessly with the locals without them ever correcting you. Then the next step is to be able to teach Greek people the advanced levels of their own language. Then the next step would be Koine Greek. You can call me anonymous all you like. What I said is simply the truth of what needs to happen. For example: It would be illogical for a person to just claim to know 1600’s English without knowing the Modern version of English we speak today. Learning Modern English will help to build real life applications whereby one will be able to learn properly 1600s English. So when I hear about how scholars just study Koine Greek and they don’t know how to order a pizza in Modern Greek, they really don’t know the language like they should.

Once again your unsupported criticism of scholars mean diddly-squat to me. Having done some graduate study myself I'm not interested in the meaningless criticism of scholars by anonymous people online with nothing but empty words. Here is how a proper critique should look "Scholar "X" translated the Greek word "Y" as "Z" which is incorrect as shown by scholars, "A", "B" " C' etc. in "name of source."

Your boasting again. I believe Scripture teaches we are not to boast as believers.
For if we think we are something when we are nothing….

Informing again dood you evidently don't know the difference.

It’s not an empty claim as I said before. I told you can search it on YouTube giving you the proper search phrase. The choice is yours to investigate it or not. I like to investigate things to increase my knowledge. But let all things I learn be given back to Christ and to His glory. Let all things be done to honor Jesus Christ. By ourselves we are nothing. Christ is everything. Without Him, we can do nothing.

That ain't the way it is done amigo. Whosoever makes a claim it is incumbent on that person to fully support said claim with proper quote and full identification of the source. That's the way professors teach it, evidently you haven't listened to any.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Once again your unsupported criticism of scholars mean diddly-squat to me. Having done some graduate study myself I'm not interested in the meaningless criticism of scholars by anonymous people online with nothing but empty words. Here is how a proper critique should look "Scholar "X" translated the Greek word "Y" as "Z" which is incorrect as shown by scholars, "A", "B" " C' etc. in "name of source."


Informing again dood you evidently don't know the difference.

That ain't the way it is done amigo. Whosoever makes a claim it is incumbent on that person to fully support said claim with proper quote and full identification of the source. That's the way professors teach it, evidently you haven't listened to any.

I do not agree. So let’s agree to disagree. May the Lord Jesus shine upon you.

 

[Der Alte]

I do not agree. So let’s agree to disagree. May the Lord Jesus shine upon you.

Fully expected this avoidance. Without such checks and balances anybody can say virtually anything, not citing any sources, then what should be trustworthy information becomes nothing but unsupported scribbling misinforming the unwary, not unlike the current state of US politics.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Fully expected this avoidance. Without such checks and balances anybody can say virtually anything, not citing any sources, then what should be trustworthy information becomes nothing but unsupported scribbling misinforming the unwary, not unlike the current state of US politics.

Well, you avoided my points. You did not bother to do the search on YouTube last we chatted and then bring up that point with me. So the door swings both ways. There is no point to keep trying to convince you of something you obviously do not want to hear. So that is why it is best to agree to disagree. Jesus did not always force His message down people’s throats if they did not get what He said. He did not chase after the many disciples that stopped following Him (John 6:66) and try to explain it to them how He was talking metaphorically. They chose their path of staying contained in a bubble of knowledge that they preferred rather than seeking after the truth. Either one wants to be right in their own eyes, or one will be a truth seeker and love God and all men according to His Word.

May God’s grace be unto you.

 

[Der Alte]

Well, you avoided my points. You did not bother to do the search on YouTube last we chatted and then bring up that point with me. So the door swings both ways. There is no point to keep trying to convince you of something you obviously do not want to hear. So that is why it is best to agree to disagree. Jesus did not always force His message down people’s throats if they did not get what He said. He did not chase after the many disciples that stopped following Him (John 6:66) and try to explain it to them how He was talking metaphorically. They chose their path of staying contained in a bubble of knowledge that they preferred rather than seeking after the truth. Either one wants to be right in their own eyes, or one will be a truth seeker and love God and all men according to His Word.
May God’s grace be unto you.

The discussion is here. If you have points to make, make them here and support them here with credible, verifiable, etc. evidence. It is not incumbent on the reader to chase down links and try to decipher what you are trying to say.

 

[LW97Nils]

Well, you avoided my points. You did not bother to do the search on YouTube last we chatted and then bring up that point with me. So the door swings both ways. There is no point to keep trying to convince you of something you obviously do not want to hear. So that is why it is best to agree to disagree. Jesus did not always force His message down people’s throats if they did not get what He said. He did not chase after the many disciples that stopped following Him (John 6:66) and try to explain it to them how He was talking metaphorically. They chose their path of staying contained in a bubble of knowledge that they preferred rather than seeking after the truth. Either one wants to be right in their own eyes, or one will be a truth seeker and love God and all men according to His Word.

May God’s grace be unto you.

I am thankful to see you are still there.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am thankful to see you are still there.

Thank you. May your kind words shine back upon you ten fold in the Lord.
I have been busy with a really extensive graphic rich PDF write up that will be available for free to read for all Christians.
So I pop in here every now and then to take a quick break. But most of time is devoted to my Christian write up most of this past year. I wanted to make it one of my best efforts and leave no stone unturned on this particular topic. I am really excited to release it, but there is still a bit more work to do with writing the sub articles.

Peace be unto you and your family in the Lord Jesus.

 

[Dan Perez]

I do not consider James Strong and his buddies to have created a perfectly inspired work that is without error.
Again, the best way to understand that word is to compare it to the rest of the chapter and to look at other cross references.
The only Greek interpretation I would actually trust is from a top Greek expert who lives in Greece and teaches their own people the Greek language with them having no religious bias or stake in the issue. Religious men who create religious dictionaries could be biased to their own religious beliefs. I am not saying they cannot be right sometimes, and I am not saying we cannot use them on rare rare occasions, but they should never be used as a code key to understand the Bible. I just read the verse in English just fine and it makes sense in light of other verses. If you don’t like the idea of the Spirit baptizing us into Jesus, thats your call. I believe it simply because that is how the Scriptures plainly read to me in the English here. I don’t need to do a fancy dance around the text in order to not believe it. I mean, think. Logically we would be connected with being a part of the body of Christ, right? When does that happen? I believe it happens right away when we are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ. Then Jesus baptizes us into the Holy Spirit. In other words, you need to first be connected to Christ in order to be connected to the Holy Spirit. This is what the immersions (Baptisms) are all about here.



They were baptized metaphorically through the Red Sea in that they went through the Red Sea when it was parted by the miracle of God. It does not literary mean they were baptized in the waters of the Red Sea.



By being immersed (baptized) by following his instructions in the beginning. From the putting on the blood of the doorposts to following him through the Red Sea. But they later fell away due to sin. In short, they started off good and were initially right with God, but then like many today, they failed to endure to the end to be saved.


Well I don’t believe baptism is for salvation in the sense that it helps one to gain entrance into the Kingdom, although I do consider water baptism as something that a believer will naturally want to do as a part of their faith in Christ.

On a quick note, I believe Matthew 28:19 is clearly talking about water baptism. This is a water baptism in then name of Jesus (Which is what we see the apostles do according to Scripture).

Mark 16:16 is a little more tricky.

There are two ways to interpret this verse.

The water baptism interpretation of Mark 16:16:

If Mark 16:16 is talking about water baptism, then Jesus would have a different understanding on the word “saved” in relation to ”believing” vs. “baptized.” We both agree that we need to believe in the Son of God, Jesus to be saved or to enter His Kingdom. As for being saved in relation to baptism: Well, Peter makes it clear that baptism saves us not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh, i.e. sin, but it saves us to give an answer to God in that we already have a cleared and clean conscience before God. Paul himself says he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel. So clearly water baptism does not save in the sense that help us to enter the Kingdom of God.

The Spirit baptism interpretation on Mark 16:16.

If Mark 16:16 is talking about Spirit baptism or baptism into the body of Christ, then this verse flows really nicely. We are saved spiritually to enter the Kingdom by both a belief in Jesus as our Savior, and by being spiritually baptized by God. No saved believer can bypass the spiritual baptisms done by God. A believer who is born again spiritually (has a new heart with new desires) and be changed radically will have been baptized spiritually by the Lord.

I learn towards the Spirit baptism interpretation because it appears to flow the best, but that does not mean that the water baptism interpretation on Mark 16:16 is not true. I consider them as both as possibiltles.

I believe that when we see the word BAPTISM by it self , it is not speaking about WATER BAPTISM .

In 1 Cor 10;2 They were all BAPTIZED unto Moses , in the CLOUD , and in the SEA ,

#1 How were all BAPTIZED unto Moses , in the Cloud , and in the Sea .

#2 How were BAPTIZED into the CLOUD ?

#3 How were they BAPTIZED in the Sea ?

#4 What does the CLOUD and the SEA , signify ?

Yur thoughts ?

dan p

 

[John Helpher]

Water baptism does not save but it is a necessity of the faith in our Sanctification:

If it is necessary, then you can't be saved without it. That's what necessary means. It's this kind of irrational jamming together of conflicting ideals (you need it but you don't really need it) that presents better evidence for this position being problematic than any verse could.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do that my word what Eph 4:5 saying , ONE BAPTISMA , just check the Greek text , using either BLUE LETTER BIBLE or use BIBLE HUB as they use the KJV translation , and I do not change words .

Our approach to the Bible is different.

My approach to the Bible is not just looking to words in an English to Greek dictionary or an English to Hebrew dictionary, etcetera. While I may use these tools when running into difficult words on rare occasion, I believe the translators of the Bible knew the languages better than any of us alive today. So the English is not incorrect. In other words, one can also look to English dictionaries, as well. Then one can see if that definition fits the context and one can see if the Bible speaks about this same truth elsewhere in the Bible.

Anyways, I believe it is important to employ the following things when studying God’s Word.

#1. Explain to God how you want His truth (even if you do not like it), and say you do not want your own truth (Even if it is more comforting or logical to you).
#2. Ask God the Father for His Holy Spirit to open your eyes when studying this issue in the name of Jesus Christ. Note: Sometimes this is a continual process to get to a truth on a verse or passage. Ask God to reveal the truth to you on a passage and He will help you. For example: In my experience, God will bring verses to my attention that ties in with the verse or passage I am studying that helps to clarify it even more.
#3. Does my definition on a word fit the context of the verse, the chapter, and the rest of Scripture? Which definition choice fits the best that would make the best sense out of the chapter or the whole message of that writer’s point within the book or letter they are writing?
#5. Look to words in older English dictionaries before even looking at things like Hebrew and Greek Lexicons. Chances are the English dictionaries are correct in most instances.

Just because any translation uses the Greek word BAPTISM does not means it means WATER / HUDOR and here is just one example in 1 Cor 10:2 , and , And all were BAPTIZED / BAPTISO unto Moses , in the Cloud , and in the Sea .

How were they BAPTIZED into Moses ??

Perhaps you missed what I already said to you before, but back in post #79, I said this to you already.

“They were baptized metaphorically through the Red Sea in that they went through the Red Sea when it was parted by the miracle of God. It does not literary mean they were baptized in the waters of the Red Sea.” Quote by Bible Highlighter.

Than in Mark 16:16 says that He that believeth and is BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED , and says that Baptism saves , your thoughts on this verse ?

dan p

Back in post #79, I already gave you an explanation on this. Here is my explanation reworded in a different way.

While I do not hold the belief that water baptism is a prerequisite for salvation in the sense of granting access to the Kingdom of God, I do consider water baptism to hold significant spiritual importance within a believer's faith journey.

Regarding Matthew 28:19, I interpret it as a clear reference to water baptism, specifically in the name of Jesus, which is in alignment with the practices of the apostles as depicted in Scripture.

Mark 16:16 presents a more nuanced challenge, open to two distinct interpretations:

The water baptism interpretation of Mark 16:16:

If Mark 16:16 is understood as referring to water baptism, it implies that Jesus had a distinct perspective on the term "saved" in relation to "believing" versus "being baptized." We both concur on the essentiality of believing in the Son of God, Jesus, for salvation and access to His Kingdom. Concerning salvation through baptism, it's worth noting that Peter emphasizes that baptism does not cleanse the physical body from sin but rather provides a clear conscience before God (See: 1 Peter 3:21). Additionally, Paul himself expressed his primary mission as preaching the gospel rather than focusing on baptism (See: 1 Corinthians 1:17). Thus, it is evident that water baptism does not save in the sense of facilitating entry into the Kingdom of God.

The Spirit baptism interpretation of Mark 16:16:

Alternatively, if Mark 16:16 is viewed as pertaining to Spirit baptism or incorporation into the body of Christ, this verse aligns well with the idea that we are spiritually saved to enter the Kingdom by both believing in Jesus as our Savior and undergoing a spiritual baptism administered by God. No saved believer can bypass the transformative spiritual baptism ordained by the Lord. A believer who experiences a profound spiritual rebirth, marked by a new heart and transformed desires, has indeed been spiritually baptized by the Lord.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do that my word what Eph 4:5 saying , ONE BAPTISMA , just check the Greek text , using either BLUE LETTER BIBLE or use BIBLE HUB as they use the KJV translation , and I do not change words .

In my previous stance (or old position), I understood Ephesians 4:5 as exclusively addressing water baptism.

However, my current perspective is that Ephesians 4:5 refers to water baptism while emphasizing its connection with spiritual baptisms. These elements harmonize as one, with water baptism serving as the primary tangible expression for us to witness and participate in. Although Spirit baptism may initially appear distinct from water baptism, it is essentially the spiritual counterpart of the physical act of water baptism. To grasp this concept, it's crucial to consider 1 John 5:8.

Lets look at it in context.

1 John 5:7-9

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.​

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.​

1 John 5:7 talks about the witness of God in Heaven. There are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

1 John 5:8 talks about the witness of man on Earth. Man is made up of water, blood, and spirit, and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:9 says the witness of God is greater. What witness of God? The witness back in 1 John 5:7 (Which plays a part of the context). Even one of the top Greek grammarians in the world says that there is a hole in the text if 1 John 5:7 is removed from the Bible. This is evident if one reads the context as I have shown.

Anyways, my main point here is that if the water, blood, and spirit agree in one, then it makes sense that water baptism mentioned in Ephesians 4:5 is referring to the most commonly understood form of baptism by most (Which was water baptism), and yet it is connected or one with the spiritual baptisms mentioned in Scripture. The physical is a representation of the spiritual. It’s one water baptism that is physical and yet has an unbroken connection with our spiritual baptisms. They all breathe together as one baptism.

It’s like the Trinity. While there are three distinct persons in the Godhead or Trinity, the Bible also teaches there is one God in substance or number. Meaning, the Lord our God is one God (in number) and yet He also exists as three distinct persons, as well. This is neither Modalism or Tritheism.

So the way I understand Ephesians 4:5 when it says there is one baptism, it is water baptism (the physical) that is connected to pointing to the spiritual reality in the Spirit immersing our lives when we first accepted Jesus Christ, and when we continue with the Spirit and crucify the affections and lusts (Galatians 5:24) (Galatians 6:8-9) (2 Corinthians 7:1) (Romans 8:13). The one baptism is an immersion in God which is represented outwardly in water baptism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If it is necessary, then you can't be saved without it. That's what necessary means. It's this kind of irrational jamming together of conflicting ideals (you need it but you don't really need it) that presents better evidence for this position being problematic than any verse could.

I believe there are two aspects of salvation.

#1. We are initially saved by God’s grace through faith without works (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Romans 4:3-5) (Romans 11:6) (Titus 3:5).​

#2. We then continue in the secondary aspect of salvation known as Sanctification (Which is the Holy Spirit helping us to live holy lives by putting away sin, and doing good works like spreading the gospel, helping the poor, and loving the brethren) (2 Thessalonians 2:13) (Galatians 6:8-9) (Romans 8:13) (Hebrews 12:14).​

While I believe Sanctification in general is dealing with salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:13) (Galatians 6:8-9) (Romans 8:13) (Which happens after we are first saved by God’s grace initially - Ephesians 2:8-9) water baptism is a unique aspect of cleansing that does not deal with salvation. Why do I say this? Because the Bible teaches it. Paul says he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17). So if water baptism was for salvation, then Paul would be contradicting himself. Why would the apostle Paul say he comes not to water baptize if it was integral to the salvation process? The short answer is that he wouldn’t. Also, Peter clarifies Mark 16:16 in 1 Peter 3:21. Peter says baptism saves us not for the putting away of “flesh” (i.e., sin - see: 2 Cor. 7:1), but as having an already clean and or clear conscience before God (Which happened when somebody believed the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and they called upon the Lord Jesus or forgiveness of their past life of sin saying, ”Lord Jesus” or similar equivalent - Romans 10:9, Romans 10:13). So no. It’s not a contradiction. The Bible does talk about sins of commission and omission. Within the framework of these sins, some sins lead to death like in Revelation 21:8, 1 John 3:15, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 9:62, 1 Corinthians 9:16, and other sins are non-death sins (See 1 John 5:16, and Matthew 5:22 In the AMP Translation). In other words, 1 John 5:16 says there is a sin not unto death, and Matthew 5:22 mentions how the first two sins can lead to punishment in earthly courts, while the last sin mentioned can lead to hellfire. While I am strongly against Catholicism (because they add things to God’s Word, etcetera), I do agree that there sins that lead to spiritual condemnation and sins that do not condemn. As I pointed out, this is based on what the Bible actually says.

Side Note:

Are you a part of the Church of Christ or another organization that teaches water baptism for salvation?

 

[John Helpher]

Paul says he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel

Good point, but remember the context. Why did he say he did not come to baptize but to preach? He was making the same distinction Jesus made when he said, "go into all the world baptizing, teaching them to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you". Do you see it?

Much like Jesus did with so many physical traditions, he showed that there is a better, deeper, spiritual lesson to be gleaned than simply performing a symbolic ritual on yourself. That's why John said, "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost."

In other words, Jesus replaced the stale tradition of "washing away of sins" with the real, inner cleanness that comes from practising his teachings. Paul didn't get this at first. He continued baptizing in water like most other people, and in this specific case, the church members were starting to argue about who had been baptized by whom. This argument is what caused Paul to see it Jesus' way; these physical, outward traditions only lead to arguing and self-righteousness.

The tradition itself is not necessarily wrong. If you want to do a public, ritualistic cleansing to symbolize a dramatic change in your life, fine. Do it. The record makes it clear that Jesus allowed the disciples to continue baptizing, even though he himself did not. The disciples were constantly having trouble with this idea of moving away from OT traditions, like baptism and circumcision. In Acts, God says to peater, "Eat" and Peter replies, "No, God. I won't eat any unclean thing". He actually rebukes God for trying to give him unclean food. You can tell in God's response that he's trying his best to be patient with Peter, probably because he could see that Peter was genuinely confused. The point being that Peter's stubborn insistence on outdated, ritualistic customs was hurting his ability to witness to non-Jews. Paul calls this out later, criticizing Peter for acting differently around Jews than he would around gentiles, as though they were still living in the OT where there were two classes of people.

These physical traditions can be helpful for children who struggle to understand concepts like inner-cleanliness, but we adults understand that symbology is not the same as reality. A person may dunk themselves in water while crying tears of joy one day and murder his brother the next. The water itself doesn't do anything, except to give people the impression that they are being spiritual when really they're just playing around with tradition and ritual.

Consider, for example, the ritual of Lent, where people ritualistically fast. And, just to prove to the whole world that they really are fasting, they put a cross-mark on their forehead with ash. But, this is exactly what Jesus said NOT to do! It is the exact opposite. He told his followers to wash their faces so that no one would know they are fasting. It's just really, really clear.

But they keep doing it. Why? Because the outward, ritual appearance makes them feel better about themselves. They don't actually care what Jesus thinks or wants. This is exactly the lesson from the parable of the Vinyard; workers come in while the boss is away and try to make it all their own.

The baptism Jesus wants for us is not the covering of water and washing away of dead flesh, but the covering (or baptism) of his teachings as part of day to day life, exactly as Jesus told the apostles to do it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Good point, but remember the context. Why did he say he did not come to baptize but to preach? He was making the same distinction Jesus made when he said, "go into all the world baptizing, teaching them to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you". Do you see it?

Much like Jesus did with so many physical traditions, he showed that there is a better, deeper, spiritual lesson to be gleaned than simply performing a symbolic ritual on yourself. That's why John said, "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost."

In other words, Jesus replaced the stale tradition of "washing away of sins" with the real, inner cleanness that comes from practising his teachings. Paul didn't get this at first. He continued baptizing in water like most other people, and in this specific case, the church members were starting to argue about who had been baptized by whom. This argument is what caused Paul to see it Jesus' way; these physical, outward traditions only lead to arguing and self-righteousness.

The tradition itself is not necessarily wrong. If you want to do a public, ritualistic cleansing to symbolize a dramatic change in your life, fine. Do it. The record makes it clear that Jesus allowed the disciples to continue baptizing, even though he himself did not. The disciples were constantly having trouble with this idea of moving away from OT traditions, like baptism and circumcision. In Acts, God says to peater, "Eat" and Peter replies, "No, God. I won't eat any unclean thing". He actually rebukes God for trying to give him unclean food. You can tell in God's response that he's trying his best to be patient with Peter, probably because he could see that Peter was genuinely confused. The point being that Peter's stubborn insistence on outdated, ritualistic customs was hurting his ability to witness to non-Jews. Paul calls this out later, criticizing Peter for acting differently around Jews than he would around gentiles, as though they were still living in the OT where there were two classes of people.

These physical traditions can be helpful for children who struggle to understand concepts like inner-cleanliness, but we adults understand that symbology is not the same as reality. A person may dunk themselves in water while crying tears of joy one day and murder his brother the next. The water itself doesn't do anything, except to give people the impression that they are being spiritual when really they're just playing around with tradition and ritual.

Consider, for example, the ritual of Lent, where people ritualistically fast. And, just to prove to the whole world that they really are fasting, they put a cross-mark on their forehead with ash. But, this is exactly what Jesus said NOT to do! It is the exact opposite. He told his followers to wash their faces so that no one would know they are fasting. It's just really, really clear.

But they keep doing it. Why? Because the outward, ritual appearance makes them feel better about themselves. They don't actually care what Jesus thinks or wants. This is exactly the lesson from the parable of the Vinyard; workers come in while the boss is away and try to make it all their own.

The baptism Jesus wants for us is not the covering of water and washing away of dead flesh, but the covering (or baptism) of his teachings as part of day to day life, exactly as Jesus told the apostles to do it.

I used to believe Spirit baptism replaced water baptism. I know the verses and the arguments because I was on that side of the fence before. I actually have come back full circle to believe that water baptism is a part of the faith because of Scripture. Also, if Spirit baptism replaced water baptism, it assumes that Peter, and Paul, and others were confused on the issue for a while. But nothing is ever said of such a thing. So it is a claim that they apostles made a mistake when no such mistake is recorded in Scripture. It seeks to accuse the apostles with no real solid evidence or witness. Why did God not simply communicate this to them?

 

[John Helpher]

Why did God not simply communicate this to them?

He did. Why do you think he hung back while the apostles went out to baptize? John was the precursor. Jesus hadn't come to do the same thing John was doing. That's why John said, "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost." If, at one time you believed that, I'd certainly like to know what made you stop.

The apostles had trouble letting go of their religious indoctrination. Jesus straight up told them, "The flesh counts for nothing; the words I speak to you are my spirit, and they are life." His teachings. That is the living water with which we're meant to baptize people. It's not about the flesh. It's about interacting with the spirit via the teachings of Jesus in day to day life. I really don't get how you got your perspective so worked around again.

God had to order Peter to eat legally unclean food. Paul rebuked Peter for acting differently around Jews than he did with gentiles. Peter was still getting it wrong even after his time with Jesus. People were getting it wrong all over the place. What about circumcision.? What about Holy Days? What about feasts and festivals? Everyone was trying to understand this new way of thinking and there was a lot of confusion about it. So yeah, Paul carried on with water baptism because there's nothing morally or spiritually wrong with it. That's why Jesus let the apostles keep doing it, (at least for a while). It's just that people invariably mistake the ritual for personal goodness, even long after the fervor of the ritual has faded away.

As you yourself said, Paul came to realize that the baptism the people needed was not water. It was preaching Jesus. He was mistaken for some time. New information came to light which informed his decision making and he changed. He got a new perspective. It dawned on him that this was what Jesus meant by all that stuff about people cleaning the outside of their cup, while the inside is still full of filth.

What we need is a more common sense interpretation of these concepts. It's not the words that are important, but the spirit behind them. That is the value Jesus brings; a spirit which is able to navigate every circumstance where the law can only fail. The spirit already has everything good from the law; it's just a better tool. God wants us to grow up, and part of that is learning to move away from these outward appearances of goodness and get back to simple obedience to Jesus' teachings.

That's the truth that sets us free. When you try to explain it with that two-kinds-of-salvation thing, the contradiction only becomes even more noticeable. i.e. "I's not necessary, but still, it's necessary". This happens when you're smart enough to realize that the water doesn't actually do anything so it makes no sense for it to be of spiritual importance, but tired enough to settle for an outward appearance that isn't inherently wrong. Jesus warned not to do our charity in public. He didn't warn not to get water baptized, so there is an inference, the same as all his other comments about the physical vs the spirit: let those who have ears, hear.

There's actually a lot of other examples of Jesus promoting the spiritual vs the physical, even to the point of declaring that seeking the spirit is more important than even food and clothing. Remember, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days"? He's clearly talking in a spiritual manner indicating his resurrection from the dead, but he's using language deliberately calculated to target the foremost physical obsession in the people's life at that point; the temple. He's talking spirit and all they can hear is physical.

It's all over the place, which I guess is why I'm carrying on (or caterwauling?) like this, writing all these paragraphs. I just can't believe you could be persuaded to go back to the physical. I mean, c;mon, look how Paul starts his letter to the Galatians in chapter three, rebuking them for becoming "bewitched" back into old testament works of the law. One of those old testament works is water baptism. It's common to assume it's a Christian thing because of John the Baptists' inclusion in the new testament books, but Jesus said that John was old testament. "The law and the prophets were until John, since then the Kingdom of Heaven is Preached. " Yeah, that makes sense. Jesus was the guy with the message. John just warmed the people up for him.

In the new testament, you don't show your faithfulness to God by performing rituals which only symbolize some inner desire to change. You do it by just getting busy doing the things Jesus said to do. That is the demonstration of renewed cleanness. He straight up says it as plainly as he can in John 15, "Now you are clean through my words". No ritual water necessary, just a desire to adhere to the words of Jesus.

 

[John Helpher]

Believe it or not, I was only going to write one paragraph. I started with such good intentions...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He did. Why do you think he hung back while the apostles went out to baptize? John was the precursor. Jesus hadn't come to do the same thing John was doing. That's why John said, "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost." If, at one time you believed that, I'd certainly like to know what made you stop.

The apostles had trouble letting go of their religious indoctrination. Jesus straight up told them, "The flesh counts for nothing; the words I speak to you are my spirit, and they are life." His teachings. That is the living water with which we're meant to baptize people. It's not about the flesh. It's about interacting with the spirit via the teachings of Jesus in day to day life. I really don't get how you got your perspective so worked around again.

God had to order Peter to eat legally unclean food. Paul rebuked Peter for acting differently around Jews than he did with gentiles. Peter was still getting it wrong even after his time with Jesus. People were getting it wrong all over the place. What about circumcision.? What about Holy Days? What about feasts and festivals? Everyone was trying to understand this new way of thinking and there was a lot of confusion about it. So yeah, Paul carried on with water baptism because there's nothing morally or spiritually wrong with it. That's why Jesus let the apostles keep doing it, (at least for a while). It's just that people invariably mistake the ritual for personal goodness, even long after the fervor of the ritual has faded away.

As you yourself said, Paul came to realize that the baptism the people needed was not water. It was preaching Jesus. He was mistaken for some time. New information came to light which informed his decision making and he changed. He got a new perspective. It dawned on him that this was what Jesus meant by all that stuff about people cleaning the outside of their cup, while the inside is still full of filth.

What we need is a more common sense interpretation of these concepts. It's not the words that are important, but the spirit behind them. That is the value Jesus brings; a spirit which is able to navigate every circumstance where the law can only fail. The spirit already has everything good from the law; it's just a better tool. God wants us to grow up, and part of that is learning to move away from these outward appearances of goodness and get back to simple obedience to Jesus' teachings.

That's the truth that sets us free. When you try to explain it with that two-kinds-of-salvation thing, the contradiction only becomes even more noticeable. i.e. "I's not necessary, but still, it's necessary". This happens when you're smart enough to realize that the water doesn't actually do anything so it makes no sense for it to be of spiritual importance, but tired enough to settle for an outward appearance that isn't inherently wrong. Jesus warned not to do our charity in public. He didn't warn not to get water baptized, so there is an inference, the same as all his other comments about the physical vs the spirit: let those who have ears, hear.

There's actually a lot of other examples of Jesus promoting the spiritual vs the physical, even to the point of declaring that seeking the spirit is more important than even food and clothing. Remember, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days"? He's clearly talking in a spiritual manner indicating his resurrection from the dead, but he's using language deliberately calculated to target the foremost physical obsession in the people's life at that point; the temple. He's talking spirit and all they can hear is physical.

It's all over the place, which I guess is why I'm carrying on (or caterwauling?) like this, writing all these paragraphs. I just can't believe you could be persuaded to go back to the physical. I mean, c;mon, look how Paul starts his letter to the Galatians in chapter three, rebuking them for becoming "bewitched" back into old testament works of the law. One of those old testament works is water baptism. It's common to assume it's a Christian thing because of John the Baptists' inclusion in the new testament books, but Jesus said that John was old testament. "The law and the prophets were until John, since then the Kingdom of Heaven is Preached. " Yeah, that makes sense. Jesus was the guy with the message. John just warmed the people up for him.

In the new testament, you don't show your faithfulness to God by performing rituals which only symbolize some inner desire to change. You do it by just getting busy doing the things Jesus said to do. That is the demonstration of renewed cleanness. He straight up says it as plainly as he can in John 15, "Now you are clean through my words". No ritual water necessary, just a desire to adhere to the words of Jesus.

I created a thread here to address my changed position.

May God bless you.