The Water Gospel of the Campbellites

[BABerean2]

Does the most important thing in the New Testament about the word "baptism" have anything to do with water?

See Luke 3:16, and Acts 11:15-17, and Romans 8:9, and 1 Corinthians 3:16, and 1 John 2:27, for the answer.

 

[Albion]

Does the most important thing in the New Testament about the word "baptism" have anything to do with water?

……………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Yes. We know it does, so what's the point here?

The word itself means to dunk, wash, or dip--all of which refer to fluids.

Jesus himself allowed John to baptize him in the Jordan River.

And the New Testament records a new believer asking, "There is much water here; what is to prevent me from being baptized?"

 

[BABerean2]

Yes. We know it does, so what's the point here?

Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

.

 

[ebedmelech]

The most important baptism has nothing to do with water. You can come out of the water a "wet lost sinner" still.

If the Holy Spirit doesn't baptize you into Christ, you're just as separated from God as you ever were.

 

[Of the Kingdom]

Water baptism is a good thing. Jesus set the example, and today it remains a good way to proclaim our commitment to Him. Ordinarily, when a person comes to Christ, water baptism should be something to look forward to. Whether baptism is immediate, or follows a period to study and understand our relationship with Jesus is not so important.

The so-called "Restoration" churches generally do teach that water baptism is "necessary". While I think this is wrong, I do accept that they are attempting to follow Jesus' Gospel as they understand it, and many of them have a strong personal relationship with Him.

While the baptism "by fire", "with the Holy Spirit" is clearly the most important, remember that all the people saved in the New Testament did get baptized in water also. Churches today which dispense with water baptism altogether are unwise in doing so (in my opinion) but it is hardly a fatal error.

 

[ebedmelech]

Water baptism is a good thing. Jesus set the example, and today it remains a good way to proclaim our commitment to Him. Ordinarily, when a person comes to Christ, water baptism should be something to look forward to. Whether baptism is immediate, or follows a period to study and understand our relationship with Jesus is not so important.

The so-called "Restoration" churches generally do teach that water baptism is "necessary". While I think this is wrong, I do accept that they are attempting to follow Jesus' Gospel as they understand it, and many of them have a strong personal relationship with Him.

While the baptism "by fire", "with the Holy Spirit" is clearly the most important, remember that all the people saved in the New Testament did get baptized in water also. Churches today which dispense with water baptism altogether are unwise in doing so (in my opinion) but it is hardly a fatal error.

Indeed. We shouldn't minimize or disregard water baptism. It is the first act of obedience after salvation. It should be done.

 

[Albion]

Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Well, despite the highlighting and large font, there are a number of problems with your line of thought.

First, the baptism with the Holy Ghost is an analogy, not a sacrament, ordinance, or action taken by the church, ministers, or people.

You are talking about an ANALOGY to baptism. It is called a "baptism" by comparison only. And that is not to say that it doesn't mean anything, but it isnt a substitute baptism.

Second, there is nothing in what you have presented here that says "Do not baptize like Jesus told his Apostles to do, but just wait for the Holy Ghost to move."

Even if you thought that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost were the important baptism, it would not be the only baptism...and because your question asked about water in baptism, the answer to that would still have to be yes.

 

[BABerean2]

Well, despite the highlighting and large font, there are a number of problems with your line of thought.

First, the baptism with the Holy Ghost is an analogy, not a sacrament, ordinance, or action taken by the church, ministers, or people.

You are talking about an ANALOGY to baptism. It is called a "baptism" by comparison only. And that is not to say that it doesn't mean anything, but it isnt a substitute baptism.

Second, there is nothing in what you have presented here that says "Do not baptize like Jesus told his Apostles to do, but just wait for the Holy Ghost to move."

Even if you thought that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost were the important baptism, it would not be the only baptism...and because your question asked about water in baptism, the answer to that would still have to be yes.

Are you also going to tell us that infants enter the Church through water baptism?

.

 

[Albion]

Are we agreed, then, on the answer to the question you first asked (Yes, the word baptism has something to do with water) and so are set to move on to a new one?

 

[BABerean2]

Are we agreed, then, on the answer to the question you first asked (Yes, the word baptism has something to do with water) and so are set to move on to a new one?

The most important thing in the New Testament about the word "baptism", has nothing to do with water, based on Luke 3:16, and Acts of the Apostles 11:15-16, and Romans 8:9, and 1 Corinthians 3:16, and Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27.

Immersion in water without consideration of the above, only gets a person wet.

The followers of Alexander Campbell claimed a person's sins were remitted through water baptism, based on Acts of the Apostles 2:38.

.

 

[Albion]

It may be important also for all readers to be clear about why you have singled out the heirs of the Stone-Campbell movement for your inquiry, when the great majority of Christians baptize with water, not just those people?

 

[BABerean2]

It may be important also for all readers to be clear about why you have singled out the heirs of the Stone-Campbell movement for your inquiry, when the great majority of Christians baptize with water, not just those people?

Do you understand the fact that their group claims water baptism is part of the salvation process?

They also claim their denomination is the only true Church.

Do you view either of these claims as un-scriptural?

.

 

[Of the Kingdom]

Do you understand the fact that their group claims water baptism is part of the salvation process?

They also claim their denomination is the only true Church.

Do you view either of these claims as un-scriptural?

Of course they have problems. The majority of Christians do believe that water baptism is essential to salvation, and are wrong also (in my opinion). That doesn't stop them from being my brothers in Christ.

What, should I repeat their error, and claim that only my denomination (and presumably certain other like-minded ones) can be "true" Christian churches? I think I'll leave it up to Christ to decide who are His. Wrong belief is correctable. Arrogance is often harder to overcome.

 

[Albion]

Do you understand the fact that their group claims water baptism is part of the salvation process?

Okay, if that is your primary concern. Thanks.

They also claim their denomination is the only true Church.

Sure, but they are only one group out of many to be doing that, so the reason for a special concern about this relatively small movement was not instantly evident.

Do you view either of these claims as un-scriptural?

If you word it so that Baptism "is part of the salvation process," as you did, then no; but if you say it is always necessary under all circumstances, then yes.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings BABerean2

The most important thing in the New Testament about the word "baptism", has nothing to do with water, based on Luke 3:16, and Acts of the Apostles 11:15-16, and Romans 8:9, and 1 Corinthians 3:16, and Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27.
Immersion in water without consideration of the above, only gets a person wet.
The followers of Alexander Campbell claimed a person's sins were remitted through water baptism, based on Acts of the Apostles 2:38.

I would be interested in your perspective on the following:
Acts 8:5–6,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
The sequence is that Philip preached the Gospel to the Samaritans, and then the Samaritans believed what Philip preached concerning the things of the Kingdom and the Name, and then they were motivated to be baptised in water.

The only mention of the Holy Spirit in this incident is that they waited for Peter and John to come before they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:14–17 (KJV): 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

In anticipation of your response, my own perspective of this is that this teaches that belief of the Gospel and water baptism is the appointed means of salvation. Romans 6:1-8 is an additional important reference showing that baptism in water is the means of identification with the death and resurrection of Christ, and this involves forgiveness of sins. In the example of the Samaritans, the Holy Spirit in the form of the Holy Spirit gifts were additional.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Willie T]

Although I got a great education there, the best thing that ever happened to me was finally leaving the Church of Christ.

 

[BABerean2]

Greetings BABerean2 I would be interested in your perspective on the following:
Acts 8:5–6,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
The sequence is that Philip preached the Gospel to the Samaritans, and then the Samaritans believed what Philip preached concerning the things of the Kingdom and the Name, and then they were motivated to be baptised in water.

The only mention of the Holy Spirit in this incident is that they waited for Peter and John to come before they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:14–17 (KJV): 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

In anticipation of your response, my own perspective of this is that this teaches that belief of the Gospel and water baptism is the appointed means of salvation. Romans 6:1-8 is an additional important reference showing that baptism in water is the means of identification with the death and resurrection of Christ, and this involves forgiveness of sins. In the example of the Samaritans, the Holy Spirit in the form of the Holy Spirit gifts were additional.

Kind regards
Trevor

That passage stands in contrast to Acts of the Apostles 11:15-17, and Ephesians 1:13, where we find the Spirit coming upon faith in Christ.

It is one of those rare times when there seems to be a conflict in scripture. My only explanation would be that those involved did not have a complete understanding of the Gospel, if they had not yet received the Spirit.

The ordinance of water baptism brings no more salvation than commemorating the Lord's Supper, which my church body did yesterday.

The thief on the cross beside of Jesus at Calvary was not water baptized.
Christ died before the thief's legs were broken.

Based on the verse below Moses had the Spirit.

Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

The father of John the Baptist had the Spirit in the verse below.

Luk 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,


Jesus told Nicodemus that he was supposed to know about the Holy Spirit indwelling believers in the verse below.

Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

.

 

[Albion]

Of course they have problems. The majority of Christians do believe that water baptism is essential to salvation....

I don't know why anyone would make this erroneous claim although I hear it all the time from opponents of traditional, sacramental baptism. Maybe they just hear it from each other.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again BABerean2,

That passage stands in contrast to Acts of the Apostles 11:15-17, and Ephesians 1:13, where we find the Spirit coming upon faith in Christ.

It is one of those rare times when there seems to be a conflict in scripture. My only explanation would be that those involved did not have a complete understanding of the Gospel, if they had not yet received the Spirit.

I disagree as the sequence is a belief of the Gospel then water baptism, and the Holy Spirit gifts were then conveyed by the Apostle’s laying on of hands. The occasion with Cornelius is the exception not the rule, to help overcome the stubbornness of the Jewish believers who accompanied Peter. Justification is by faith of the gospel and the Samaritans fully believed the Gospel as stated in Acts 8:5-6,12.

The ordinance of water baptism brings no more salvation than commemorating the Lord's Supper, which my church body did yesterday.

The ordinance of water baptism is part of the process of justification by faith. A person needs to believe the Gospel and is thus motivated to be identified with the death and resurrection of Christ and is part of the process of salvation and becoming a disciple. This is water baptism. All other forms of water initiation are useless.

The thief on the cross beside of Jesus at Calvary was not water baptized. Christ died before the thief's legs were broken.

The thief on the cross believed the Gospel and was crucified with Christ, in reality, thus fulfilling in detail what water baptism symbolises. If we do not continue fulfilling the crucified/ resurrected life after our water baptism, then we have failed Galatians 2:20.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Of the Kingdom]

The portion of my statement which is what I think you are commenting on:

"The majority of Christians do believe that water baptism is essential to salvation"

I don't know why anyone would make this erroneous claim although I hear it all the time from opponents of traditional, sacramental baptism. Maybe they just hear it from each other.

It is my understanding that those who believe in "traditional, sacramental baptism" generally believe regeneration normally occurs at the time of (water) baptism, although most believe there are exceptions, for example "baptism of desire". When I said "essential" it was perhaps misleading; I didn't mean to imply there are no exceptions.

My apologies if I have misrepresented other's beliefs. I think the Church of Christ calls water baptism "necessary". I assume they believe God is ultimately in charge of salvation, and that there may be exceptions to water baptism also, but I'm not sure.

I personally believe water baptism is better understood as a public proclamation of a salvation which should have occurred first.