Water Baptism - Is It Really Necessary?

[AVBunyan]

And that reveals your appreciation of the Word of God: cut out all the pages that speak of water baptism???

Nonsense holden - now you are judging my appreciation for the word of God and making this the issue?

Get back on tract here. The issue is the doctrine not my appreciation or lack of appreciation.

Now, in answer to your question...Answer - No - what I am attempting to do is to show you the proper use and doctrine of baptism so when the word baptism comes up you (or some one) else will understand more clearly. Get the context right.

Also - you are so hung up on trying to keep your water that you neglected the whole purpose of my post regarding the proper message for salvation.

Let's try it again with feeling...

Get the right message for salvation today right (I Cor. 15:1-5) and the water becomes a non issue.

God bless

 

[Splayd]

I've got a slightly different question. Does anyone actually believe it is WRONG to go through water baptism?

I'm not interested in specific instances like "It's wrong if..." I'm asking if anyone thinks that NOBODY should go through water baptism.

 

[S Walch]

Of course not - there's nothing wrong with Water baptism.

It's only wrong if people say you need to be Water baptised in order to be saved - that's just ridiculous.

 

[holdon]

Nonsense holden - now you are judging my appreciation for the word of God and making this the issue?

Because your comment called water baptism nonsense. So, I must conclude that you don't appreciate those passages that speak about water baptism. How do you value christian water baptism?

Get back on tract here. The issue is the doctrine not my appreciation or lack of appreciation.

We shall soon see....

Now, in answer to your question...Answer - No - what I am attempting to do is to show you the proper use and doctrine of baptism so when the word baptism comes up you (or some one) else will understand more clearly. Get the context right.
Also - you are so hung up on trying to keep your water that you neglected the whole purpose of my post regarding the proper message for salvation.

But this thread is about "water baptism: is it necessary?". Not about salvation per se. Let me ask you this: is water baptism necessary and why?

 

[ScottBot]

Baptism is required because Scripture requires it.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Let me ask you this: is water baptism necessary
2. and why?

I'll say it again - The issue is still salvation - get justification settled and baptism becomes a non-issue.
1. No
2. See below
I posted this somewhere - this might provide some answers to your questions...an abbreviated post

"Now this is what I believe baptism was for in the Bible. I will only discuss the word baptism as it relates to water for just because you see the word baptize it doesn’t mean it is associated with water all the time. For example - look at I Cor. 10:2 and Col. 2:12 and try to find water baptism there.

The first time water baptism shows up is with John the Baptist. Now why did John baptize? Let’s let him tell us.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Look at “therefore” – why is the “therefore” there? The issue was manifesting Christ to Israel. Christ was being manifesting to Israel for the first time. John the Baptist said (paraphrasing), “Here is your Messiah! Do you believe this” Ok, then get baptized.“ Why get baptized? To show that you believe Christ was Israel’s long awaited for Messiah. And along with that they were to show their repentance in regards to their rejection of God the Father in the Old Testament. Manifestation and repentance - It is that simple. And yet this simple doctrine meant for God’s dealing with Israel has turned into a monster.

Do you know why they continued to baptize during Acts? Because the Jews rejected Christ in the gospels and were getting a second chance in Acts. The Gentiles were in on it because they were getting in on Israel’s blessings at that time. Once Israel finally rejected the message in Acts 28 then there was no need to call everyone’s attention to Jesus being the Messiah for that plan was done away with and Paul was called out by God to reveal the body of Christ.

The issue of showing Christ being the Messiah is a non issue today for we have advanced revelation on the matter due to the New Testament being finally written down – plus God is not dealing with Israel right now (I know, a broken record) – So………..baptism is a non issue today. There is only one baptism and that is the one baptism of Ephesians 4 and that has nothing to do with water!

Again, if you start with Paul you will get it – you can’t start with John the Baptist and carry a practice meant for Israel all the way through the church age! You see how simple the scriptures are? You know, Christianity is full of a lot of “junk” today that has nothing to do with Bible Christianity."

The message today is Christ came to save sinners by the work at Calvary - not by the work of a baptistry.

God bless

 

[S Walch]

[/color]

That's an interesting translation. "the upright one" instead of "the Lord". What is that? The New Muslim Version?

"Jesus was an upright Muslim" they say...hmmm

You dare insult me by saying I'd use a Muslim translation of the Bible!

"the upright one" is from the Hebrew word 'edon - and it has messianic conotations, and is therfore a reference to Yahushua.



"the upright one" is refering to Jesus/Yahushua being placed "upright" on the cross.

Just wanted to say - I'm sorry for snapping at you the way I did.

It was very un-Messiah like of me

My Apologis.

 

[holdon]

I'll say it again - The issue is still salvation - get justification settled and baptism becomes a non-issue.
1. No
2. See below
I posted this somewhere - this might provide some answers to your questions...an abbreviated post

"Now this is what I believe baptism was for in the Bible. I will only discuss the word baptism as it relates to water for just because you see the word baptize it doesn’t mean it is associated with water all the time. For example - look at I Cor. 10:2 and Col. 2:12 and try to find water baptism there.

Baptized to Moses was through the Red Sea: plenty of water. Col 2:12 is water baptism to me: buried with Him in baptism. Compare that with Romans 6. No hint of Spirit baptism whatsoever. Nor has Spirit baptism anything to do with death and burial.

The first time water baptism shows up is with John the Baptist. Now why did John baptize? Let’s let him tell us.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Look at “therefore” – why is the “therefore” there? The issue was manifesting Christ to Israel. Christ was being manifesting to Israel for the first time. John the Baptist said (paraphrasing), “Here is your Messiah! Do you believe this” Ok, then get baptized.“ Why get baptized? To show that you believe Christ was Israel’s long awaited for Messiah. And along with that they were to show their repentance in regards to their rejection of God the Father in the Old Testament. Manifestation and repentance - It is that simple. And yet this simple doctrine meant for God’s dealing with Israel has turned into a monster.

Did you ever ask yourself the question why repentance alone was not enough? Why baptism in water? It was for remission of sins. Surely a "spiritual" significance as they would say. But why the water?

Do you know why they continued to baptize during Acts? Because the Jews rejected Christ in the gospels and were getting a second chance in Acts. The Gentiles were in on it because they were getting in on Israel’s blessings at that time. Once Israel finally rejected the message in Acts 28 then there was no need to call everyone’s attention to Jesus being the Messiah for that plan was done away with and Paul was called out by God to reveal the body of Christ.

That's all pure conjecture. No Scripture will support this far-fetched theory. Why Acts 28? Why not Acts 2 or 9 or anywhere else?

The issue of showing Christ being the Messiah is a non issue today for we have advanced revelation on the matter due to the New Testament being finally written down – plus God is not dealing with Israel right now (I know, a broken record) – So………..baptism is a non issue today.

But the baptism of John, if that was to prepare the people for Messiah, is clearly distinguished from Christian water baptism. And has nothing to do with it. See for example Acts 19. Which was by the way long before Acts 28.....

There is only one baptism and that is the one baptism of Ephesians 4 and that has nothing to do with water!

Again, that is just speculative conjecture on your part. Show me why that is NOT water baptism.

Again, if you start with Paul you will get it – you can’t start with John the Baptist and carry a practice meant for Israel all the way through the church age!

Again: John's baptism is contrasted with Christian baptism, so your point has no value whatsoever.

You see how simple the scriptures are? You know, Christianity is full of a lot of “junk” today that has nothing to do with Bible Christianity."

Well, I would advise you to read Acts in particular more carefully.

The message today is Christ came to save sinners by the work at Calvary - not by the work of a baptistry.

Yes, Christ saved sinners for eternity at Calvary. Yet, Christ wants his disciples (specifically the nations) to be baptized to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. There will be followers of Him walking on this earth, though professing not to belong to this world, but having a citizenship on high, bearing His name: as Christians. That is what baptism expresses. Dead for this world, but professing to belong to a New sphere: His kingdom.

 

[winsome]

Baptism – water baptism – is what incorporates us into the New Covenant. It is the equivalent of circumcision under the Abramic covenant. It is through baptism that we are rescued from the power of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of his [the Father’s] beloved Son. (Col 1:13).

“But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.” (Heb 8:6-7).

The Hebrew blood covenant had several elements, these elements we find in the new covenant made by Jesus. Briefly these are:

1. Exchange of robes: Jesus gives us himself so that we can be dressed in his righteousness in exchange for our rags of sin
“As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal 3:27)

2. Exchanging belts – Belts supported their armour and held their weapons, so this was an exchange of weapons. Paul spells out the armour God has given us in Eph 6:13-17

3. Blood sacrifice – Jesus on the cross and Jesus’ statement at the Last Supper “This is my blood of the covenant , which will be shed for many” (Mk 14:24)

4. Ceremonial meal – the Last Supper at which the flesh of the sacrificial victim (Jesus) is consumed.

5. Covenant Scar or mark – Jesus bloody and scarred body was the covenant scar. But we also need a mark of our incorporation into the covenant. This is imparted on our soul at baptism . The Catholic Catechism puts it this way “Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation” (CCC 1272) See also 2Cor 1:22“he has also put his seal upon us”

6. The covenant terms – Jesus gave us the terms of the covenant during his ministry by the many promises he made for those who became his disciples, and the results for those who were not. For example:

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath.” (Jn 3:36)

“I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” (Jn 15:5-6)

“The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:16)

7. The parties to the covenant become “friends” – this is more than just acquaintances but a blood bond, a familial bond. Hence we become brothers and sisters of Jesus and children of the Father. Hence Jesus said at the Last Supper
“No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.” (Jn 15:13-14)

The Letter to the Hebrews says a lot about this new covenant in chapters 8 & 9. And in chapter 10 (19-22) we read:

“Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh), and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”

This is also why Paul can say in 1Cor 6:11
“And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God”.

Baptism then incorporates into the body of Christ “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1Cor 12:13)

 

[Splayd]

I'll concede that many of the verses concerning baptism could be ambiguous.

Remembering that "baptism" is a made-up church word that might otherwise have been translated literally as "immersion" it is conceivable that verses such as 1 Cor 12:13 really means 'the Spirit immerses us into one body' rather than 'we become part of the body by the Spirit through water baptism'.

Regardless of all that - if there is even one instance where Jesus tells us to got through water baptism (and there are more) we are compelled to obey Him. There's a difference between "necessary" and "required for salvation". We know that it is possible to enter heaven without a water baptism because the thief on the cross did it. Regardless of motive, desire etc... we can determine from past cases that the actual physical action of water baptism is not an actual physical requirement. There's no tick box for it whereby God says "Hmmm... I know you truly love me with all your heart and soul and mind. I know you have accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour and seek only to honour me. BUT... this box isn't checked so you can't come in."

It can be seen to be necessary though that we accept Jesus as our LORD. If we unwittingly disobey Him out of ignorance it's one thing, but if we know what He would have us do and refuse... what are our actions saying of our acceptance of Jesus Lordship? Are we truly accepting it or are we making a legal argument whereby we're bargaining for salvation. Aren't we truly saying to God that we'll accept His gift but we aren't prepared to do any more than the minimum requirements? Aren't we agreeing to accept Jesus as Saviour but not as Lord? That doesn't wash. We're to accept both.

Jesus instructs us to do many things. We're to remember Him through communion. We're to feed the hungry, care for the sick etc.. and yes we are to be baptised. Are these all necessary? YES! Not to ensure salvation for I fear many of us would fall down on one point or another. God didn't simply instill a new set of LAW by which we can be judged. Rather we are saved by His grace through faith in Jesus... BUT if we choose to ignore His will for us; if we consciously defy His instructions; if we aren't compelled to love each other can we truly say we have accepted Jesus as Lord?

 

[winsome]

I'll concede that many of the verses concerning baptism could be ambiguous.

Remembering that "baptism" is a made-up church word that might otherwise have been translated literally as "immersion" it is conceivable that verses such as 1 Cor 12:13 really means 'the Spirit immerses us into one body' rather than 'we become part of the body by the Spirit through water baptism'.

Regardless of all that - if there is even one instance where Jesus tells us to got through water baptism (and there are more) we are compelled to obey Him. There's a difference between "necessary" and "required for salvation". We know that it is possible to enter heaven without a water baptism because the thief on the cross did it. Regardless of motive, desire etc... we can determine from past cases that the actual physical action of water baptism is not an actual physical requirement. There's no tick box for it whereby God says "Hmmm... I know you truly love me with all your heart and soul and mind. I know you have accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour and seek only to honour me. BUT... this box isn't checked so you can't come in."

It can be seen to be necessary though that we accept Jesus as our LORD. If we unwittingly disobey Him out of ignorance it's one thing, but if we know what He would have us do and refuse... what are our actions saying of our acceptance of Jesus Lordship? Are we truly accepting it or are we making a legal argument whereby we're bargaining for salvation. Aren't we truly saying to God that we'll accept His gift but we aren't prepared to do any more than the minimum requirements? Aren't we agreeing to accept Jesus as Saviour but not as Lord? That doesn't wash. We're to accept both.

Jesus instructs us to do many things. We're to remember Him through communion. We're to feed the hungry, care for the sick etc.. and yes we are to be baptised. Are these all necessary? YES! Not to ensure salvation for I fear many of us would fall down on one point or another. God didn't simply instill a new set of LAW by which we can be judged. Rather we are saved by His grace through faith in Jesus... BUT if we choose to ignore His will for us; if we consciously defy His instructions; if we aren't compelled to love each other can we truly say we have accepted Jesus as Lord?

Yes, but if we reject his saving grace offered in baptism where does that leave us?

And what about Jn 3:5
Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

As you say - "if we consciously defy His instructions...?"

We know that it is possible to enter heaven without a water baptism because the thief on the cross did it.

There are two points here - firstly the thief had no opportunity to be baptised, and secondly, as has been pointed out already, God is not bound by the sacraments. But I don't think that from this you can say that entry into heaven is not a necessity full stop; that "the actual physical action of water baptism is not an actual physical requirement." God can make exceptions to his own rules, but the rules are still there.

 

[holdon]

And what about Jn 3:5
Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

But that has nothing to do with water baptism.

 

[sawitch]

If you read many of my other posts, I refuse to use the worst English translation imaginable to quote from.

I don't want to veer from the point, but well said!!

 

[winsome]

But that has nothing to do with water baptism.

Which bit is not about water baptism - the water or the born again?

 

[Schroeder]

I find it difficult to follow your train of thought here but let me take the points I think you are making.

1. I know that the root of the word baptize is to plunge or submerse, but at the time, as now, the word baptize is synonymous with baptizing with water. There was no other. No-one needed to say baptize with water. That’s what baptism was.

On the other hand when something different was meant the phrase baptize with the Holy Spirit was used to clarify this was of a different kind to the normal baptism that everyone was used to.

i would think the word was synonymous with what it meant. you baptized alot of thing in a lot of ways. the word was used just as much with other baptism then just water. they would not need to say with water if it was present and obvious. it was used only when it spoke of a gift the SPirit gave. the apostles should have understood that JTB spoke of Jesus baptizing in the SPirit and Jesus even told them so they DID know about the baptism of the SPirit well enough. it is just that the baptism of the SPirit parraled the old water baptism very well which is why it was used. the SPirit baptism did the same as the old water baptism BUT TRUELLY did cleanse instead of just getting it wet and momemtarely cleansing it.

2. With reference to your points about commas; firstly as I understand it the original text does not have punctuation, so any punctuation is part of the translation/interpretation. Even so the reason the comma is there is because this is part of a list and lthe items on a list are conventionally seprated by commas. They are equivalent to and.

Go, therefore, [the command]
And make disciples of all nations [first item on list]
[and] baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit [second item inmlist – also note sub list separated by commas]
[and] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. [third item on the list]

it amazing how many different interpretations i have gotten or been told of how this verse was written. though yours seems the best. BUT if you read it right the and could just as easily and does mean they, being made disciples, does unite them INTO the trinity or body of Christ. So to me it is saying go make disciples joining them into the Church and teach them to obey my commands. that makes much better since because that is what they truelly did. IS it not. they NEVER water baptized in this formula or wording so why do we think thaty is what it is trying to tell us.

3. You say
“and does it say Paul rewater baptized those in acts 19:3. he laid hands on them and they received this Spirit baptism.”

But that is exactly what happened:
“When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them.”

Two separate actions - baptized and laying of hands, just as in Acts 8:12 -17

“But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place.
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. “

You see - two separate actions. Firstly baptism, then the laying on of hands by an apostle to call down the Holy Spirit.

notice ONE was done in johns baptism without knowledge of Jesus' Spirit baptism. and notice he ASKEDS them if they recieved the SPirit baptism when they BELIEVED. not when they got water baptized. Also notice in 8:12- they were water baptized but did not receive the gift of the holy SPirit, or Spirit baptism. SOO in both one not in his name the other in his name the SPirit baptism was not part of the water baptism but CLEARLY seperate. one does not go with the other.

John speaks of being born from above because the cleansing, renewal, forgiveness of sin by baptism are the action of God, not man. We do the prescribed physical ritual and God does the spiritual action. We baptize with water and God renews us and rescues us from

“the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin.” (Col 1:13-14)

You then jump to verse 8, but missed out another important verse – verse 5
“Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” (Jn 3:5)

How can Jesus baptise me? Very easily because it is done in his name. Doing something in Jesus name (or in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit) is not just a form of words, it is doing it as though it were Jesus himself.

BUt we are told in a couple of places that the outward ritual is not needed by us because Christ did it once for all on the CROSS. The problem is when you say God will not do his work unless we do ours( water baptism) That is complete nonsence. well if you dont look at verse3 saying born from above(the SPirit baptism) ONLY one thing then skip over what nico is thinking, which is only the phsycal birth, and go to verse 5 it would not make since to say from the SPirit then say by water baptism and spirit baptism. verse 5-6 is responding to nico comments in verse 4 about the physical birth. so he makes it more clear for him. that is what the whole flesh gives birth to the flesh is saying(the water in verse 5) and he AGAIN says Spirit gives birth to the SPirit. if water means water baptism in verse 5 then he would have told him that through water baptism we get the working of the SPirit or the birth of the SPirit. BUT it says FLESH births to flesh and SPirit gives the SPirit just as verse 3 and 8 say. we are to do ALL things in this name of the Lord it was not meant just for water baptism. And is there not a passage that speaks of some men trying to drive out demons in his name. what happened. SOO just to say it in his name means nothing. it is what GOD sees in your heart. acts 15:8 you believe in Christ GOd sees you truelly do in your heart he gives the SPirit or Christ baptizes you, and this is the new birth. as rom 8 explains.

 

[Schroeder]

Yes, but if we reject his saving grace offered in baptism where does that leave us?

this is the MOST incorrect blasphmest thing being said today. it would not be GRACE if GOd has us DO somethign to receive something. do you all read rom 5:18-19 HIS saving GRACE was ALREADY OFFERED THROUGH CHRSIT ON THE CROSS. we are to BELIEVE THIS. what is the one WORK we are to do asked of GOd. read john 6:29 " the work of God is this : TO BELIEVE IN THE ONE HE HAS SENT." that is our WORK.

And what about Jn 3:5
Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

As you say - "if we consciously defy His instructions...?"

he gave us TWO commands that summed all the other up. i am sure you know them. 1 john 5:9-12

There are two points here - firstly the thief had no opportunity to be baptised, and secondly, as has been pointed out already, God is not bound by the sacraments. But I don't think that from this you can say that entry into heaven is not a necessity full stop; that "the actual physical action of water baptism is not an actual physical requirement." God can make exceptions to his own rules, but the rules are still there.

welli just above gave you the rule which was asked to CHRIST of what God asks of us. SO i hope that answers that. john 6:28-29 Also read heb 9:10 - EXTERNAL REGULATIONS UNTILL the new order. ITS ALL SPIRTUAL KNOW. thankfully because these cannot be corrupted by man. and the proof of this truth is all the fighting caused by pushing these ordances and rites ect ect. which have ONLY seperated the Chruch. the devil is a sly fox.

 

[holdon]

Which bit is not about water baptism - the water or the born again?

Neither one. Jn 3:5 is not about baptism. Not about water baptism, not about Spirit baptism.

 

[winsome]

Neither one. Jn 3:5 is not about baptism. Not about water baptism, not about Spirit baptism.

Go on then, surprise me. What do you think it is about?

 

[winsome]

it amazing how many different interpretations i have gotten or been told of how this verse was written. though yours seems the best. BUT if you read it right the and could just as easily and does mean they, being made disciples, does unite them INTO the trinity or body of Christ. So to me it is saying go make disciples joining them into the Church and teach them to obey my commands. that makes much better since because that is what they truelly did.

Your interpretation just does not fit what is actrually written. Why do you have to wriggle to try and twist the meaning?

I have consulted several translations. The NIV, NRSV, NIV all use the list with commas. The NJB uses a semi-colon after disciples and the NJB uses a colon. Both of these are clearing showing that the last two are how you make disciple (baptise them and teach them).

You can read it as make disciples, and baptise and teach, or make disiples; [by] baptising and teaching. But no way can you say make disciples which itself baptises them, and teach them.

I'll come back to the rest of your points later as I don't have time right now.

 

[holdon]

Go on then, surprise me. What do you think it is about?

It's about the new birth effectuated by the Word of God (water) and the Spirit.