Water Baptism - Is It Really Necessary?

[GenemZ]

I gave scripture references where necessary, but if you want it with all the references here goes:

Good!

Shortly after Pentecost we have the first mention of Barnabus ( Acts 5:36-37)

Hmmmm? Really? What trans are you using? This is what it says....

"Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered."

Then we have the appointment of the seven deacons (Acts 6:1-7) which includes Philip.

Ok? What has this got to do with anything concerning the topic?Are you doing this to show you can quote chapter and verse, now? So far, you quote a wrong section of Scripture. Now, you are just making a passing statement. Why? To prove what?

Then we have the martyrdom of Stephen with Saul present. (Acts 8:54-60)

Ok.... Still no point was made. But, you did quote chapter and verse. Are you reading out of a commentary and trying to follow what it says?

Then Philip is baptising with water in Samaria. (Acts 8:12-13)

Ok, and I showed previously why they were still automatically thinking about water. They were still living in their thinking according to the age that just had ended, and they did not know the new ways yet. OK. I explained why that could be.

Peter and John come up from Jerusalem, and the Holy Spirit is poured out on them. (Acts 8:14-17)
Note that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit follows the laying on of hands by the apostles on those who have been baptised (with water)

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."



​

Now I can see the problem... You do not understand the meaning of baptism to the ancients. They were baptized in the name of the LORD Jesus. They were preached to in his name as LORD! It does not mean they were baptized in water, but in his name as LORD.

Another thing. These were Samarians! Not Jews! The baptism of John was to only Jews! They had not been water baptized in the past. John would have not baptized them in water. John's baptism was only to Jews.

John 4:9 niv
"The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) "

No Samarian had been water baptized in any name until after Pentecost! What they were baptized into, was now knowing the Jesus is LORD! Not simply as a good rabbi.


These Samarians heard about the risen Christ before he ascended and was glorified! That is why the Spirit was not yet given to them.

The risen Christ had been preached to them. They heard about this miracle of the Resurrection of Christ!

But, at that time the Spirit was not yet given!

The period between Jesus appearing to the disciples, and ascending to Heaven; was a time that Jesus had not yet recieved his glorification. He had to be first seated in Heaven before the baptism of the Spirit could happen.


I hope you are getting this. Because its the main reason for not getting what I have said.

Let me try it this way.....

Back in the early sixties I was in high school. I remember one day when in the boys room I was talking to a fellow student who was combing his hair down in a certain way that no one else did.

I asked him... "Bruce? Why are you combing your hair that way?"

He said: "The Beatles."

I said: "Who?"

He said: "The Beatles"

Me: "Who's the Beatles?"

He: (with a smile) "You'll see!"

At that point I had been baptized in the name of the Beatles. Nothing else. I was aware of something that before, I was ignorant of.

A few months later when the Beatles became a sensation and were played on the radio, I was baptized into the Beatles! Before, I had been only baptized in the name.

And, I mean baptized! It was the talk of everywhere! Their music was being played everywhere! On the News! On the radio! On TV! In the papers! Its all we could talk about at that time. We just loved their music and that new look! First I was baptized in the name. Then I was baptized into who they were. Analogies are never 100% perfect. So? Nit pik, if you must.

Now.....

Jesus had risen from the dead. He did not ascend at this point. He appeared to the dsiciples. They now saw he was LORD, no longer simply as God appearing as a man.

Word got around that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that he is now to be called by all, "LORD Jesus!"

Some had been made aware of this and were now baptized into the name of the LORD Jesus. Not simply, rabbi Jesus as he had been known before.

16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."



​

It says, they were baptized into the name, LORD Jesus. They now knew with certainty that he was the Lord! But? They heard this before the Holy Spirit was to be given. For they heard this before the ascension and glorification of Christ!

John 7:39 niv
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.



​

It says, they only had been simply baptized into theNAME of the LORD Jesus. The baptism of the Spirit was not at that time yet to be given!

It says they were baptized INTO his name. Not baptized in his name. They had been introduced into the revelation that Jesus is LORD.

Many thought Jesus was a good man. A prophet. Now they were baptized into knowing he is God. But? The baptism of the Holy Spirit did not come till after that. It was during that short period that there was a delay between believing, and being baptized in the Spirit. For they were baptized into his name BEFORE he ascended and was glorified. Glorification day took place just before the Day of Pentecost.

Now is something else to meditate upon in prayer.

Acts 19:4-6 (New American Standard Bible)
"Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."


When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying."




​

What does that say? These folks were baptized when they heard the truth about Jesus! It does not say they were baptized after they heard. But, WHILE they heard! Being told the truth about Jesus is to be baptized in his name!


Baptism held many applications in the Greek language. The word was not automatically associated with water! It means to be placed into identification with something (immersed). One can be immersed into a crash study for finals. Eat, study, sleep, eat, study..... It means to be placed into identification with something. It did not make them think of water when the word was spoken. Water was only one form of immersion. To be made one with something.

I am going to stop here because this is a point that we all first need to understand before anything else can be explained properly. Baptism was not a word that was automatically associated with water to the ancients.

Acts 11:16 niv
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

And..... here are a few links to others who have also discovered this truth in the Scripture.

http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=121449

http://www.mindspring.com/~mamcgee/grace_baptism5.html

http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=53885


Never heard of them before. But, we all have been given the same Spirit to lead us into truth. No... I am not some guy stranded on an island.

Also, the famous theologian E.W. Bullinger saw this issue as well. He knew the original languages and caused problems for the traditionalists in his day.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Carlos Vigil]

[/B]


That is not a true translation from the Greek.


" and this water
--------------------------------------------------
symbolizes baptism
--------------------------------------------------
that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." niv

Which water was Peter speaking of? The water of Noah's flood that lifted them up and above those who drowned in water. Noah was not baptized in water. He was lifted UP by the water in the Ark (where he remained dry). This saved him! being lifted up above the judgement!

In Christ, GeneZ

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah & Assoc. were saved because they REMAINED IN THE ARK during the flood.
We Catholice are saved because we REMAIN IN OUR BAPTISM during our JOURNEY through this world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Protestants like to cover everything that requires a RITUAL with the magic word:..SYMBOLIC"
Adding "SYMBOLIC" to Scripture is " ALTERING THE GOSPEL " Gal. 1: 7

Perhaps when it comes time to RECEIVE their "eternal reward".... God will give them a "symbol",
insted of the REAL THING.

Like, maybe a POST CARD with a "picture of heaven" on one side
and on the other side: "Wish you were here, ... have a nice eternity " ::MI

"SYMBOLIC" is their "magic tarp" that covers over everything they don't want to deal with.

Best of LUCK to you...

 

[winsome]

Good!

Shortly after Pentecost we have the first mention of Barnabus ( Acts 5:36-37)

Hmmmm? Really? What trans are you using? This is what it says....



"Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered."

Sorry – should have been 4:36-37. That’s what comes of looking at the top of the page for the chapter no.

Ok? What has this got to do with anything concerning the topic?Are you doing this to show you can quote chapter and verse, now? So far, you quote a wrong section of Scripture. Now, you are just making a passing statement. Why? To prove what?

I’m establishing that the Philip who is baptising in Samaria is not an apostle. Therefore he doesn’t have the gift of laying on hands to call down the Holy Spirit. Hence why Peter & John came from Jerusalem to do this.

Ok.... Still no point was made. But, you did quote chapter and verse. Are you reading out of a commentary and trying to follow what it says?

Just marking where Paul enters the story

Ok, and I showed previously why they were still automatically thinking about water. They were still living in their thinking according to the age that just had ended, and they did not know the new ways yet. OK. I explained why that could be.

Good, so we are agreed on the water baptism at this stage.

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."
​

As SoldierOfTheKing said “In the name! Not into the name! Baptized in water on behalf of Jesus. Perfect example of how modern translations always make at least one new mistake for every one they correct. Even the NIV, if you read the footnotes at the bottom, cites "in" as an alternative translation.”

New American Bible – IN not INTO
New Jerusalem Bible – IN not INTO
NRSC – IN not iINTO
Good News – IN not INTO


​

Now I can see the problem... You do not understand the meaning of baptism to the ancients. They were baptized in the name of the LORD Jesus. They were preached to in his name as LORD! It does not mean they were baptized in water, but in his name as LORD.

But you have just accepted that they were baptised in water. This is what Philip understood by baptism. This is what he did with the Ethipoian – (see Acts 8:36-38 if you want the reference)

Another thing. These were Samarians! Not Jews! The baptism of John was to only Jews! They had not been water baptized in the past. John would have not baptized them in water. John's baptism was only to Jews.

John 4:9 niv
"The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) "

No Samarian had been water baptized in any name until after Pentecost! What they were baptized into, was now knowing the Jesus is LORD! Not simply as a good rabbi.


These Samarians heard about the risen Christ before he ascended and was glorified! That is why the Spirit was not yet given to them.

The risen Christ had been preached to them. They heard about this miracle of the Resurrection of Christ!

But, at that time the Spirit was not yet given!

The period between Jesus appearing to the disciples, and ascending to Heaven; was a time that Jesus had not yet recieved his glorification. He had to be first seated in Heaven before the baptism of the Spirit could happen.


I hope you are getting this. Because its the main reason for not getting what I have said.

Let me try it this way.....

Back in the early sixties I was in high school. I remember one day when in the boys room I was talking to a fellow student who was combing his hair down in a certain way that no one else did.

I asked him... "Bruce? Why are you combing your hair that way?"

He said: "The Beatles."

I said: "Who?"

He said: "The Beatles"

Me: "Who's the Beatles?"

He: (with a smile) "You'll see!"

At that point I had been baptized in the name of the Beatles. Nothing else. I was aware of something that before, I was ignorant of.

A few months later when the Beatles became a sensation and were played on the radio, I was baptized into the Beatles! Before, I had been only baptized in the name.

And, I mean baptized! It was the talk of everywhere! Their music was being played everywhere! On the News! On the radio! On TV! In the papers! Its all we could talk about at that time. We just loved their music and that new look! First I was baptized in the name. Then I was baptized into who they were. Analogies are never 100% perfect. So? Nit pik, if you must.

Now.....

Jesus had risen from the dead. He did not ascend at this point. He appeared to the dsiciples. They now saw he was LORD, no longer simply as God appearing as a man.

Word got around that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that he is now to be called by all, "LORD Jesus!"

Some had been made aware of this and were now baptized into the name of the LORD Jesus. Not simply, rabbi Jesus as he had been known before.

16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."



​

It says, they were baptized into the name, LORD Jesus. They now knew with certainty that he was the Lord! But? They heard this before the Holy Spirit was to be given. For they heard this before the ascension and glorification of Christ!

John 7:39 niv
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.



​

It says, they only had been simply baptized into theNAME of the LORD Jesus. The baptism of the Spirit was not at that time yet to be given!

It says they were baptized INTO his name. Not baptized in his name. They had been introduced into the revelation that Jesus is LORD.

Many thought Jesus was a good man. A prophet. Now they were baptized into knowing he is God. But? The baptism of the Holy Spirit did not come till after that. It was during that short period that there was a delay between believing, and being baptized in the Spirit. For they were baptized into his name BEFORE he ascended and was glorified. Glorification day took place just before the Day of Pentecost.

Now is something else to meditate upon in prayer.

Acts 19:4-6 (New American Standard Bible)
"Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."


When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying."




​

What does that say? These folks were baptized when they heard the truth about Jesus! It does not say they were baptized after they heard. But, WHILE they heard! Being told the truth about Jesus is to be baptized in his name!


Baptism held many applications in the Greek language. The word was not automatically associated with water! It means to be placed into identification with something (immersed). One can be immersed into a crash study for finals. Eat, study, sleep, eat, study..... It means to be placed into identification with something. It did not make them think of water when the word was spoken. Water was only one form of immersion. To be made one with something.

I am going to stop here because this is a point that we all first need to understand before anything else can be explained properly. Baptism was not a word that was automatically associated with water to the ancients.

Acts 11:16 niv
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

And..... here are a few links to others who have also discovered this truth in the Scripture.

http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=121449

http://www.mindspring.com/~mamcgee/grace_baptism5.html

http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=53885


Never heard of them before. But, we all have been given the same Spirit to lead us into truth. No... I am not some guy stranded on an island.

Also, the famous theologian E.W. Bullinger saw this issue as well. He knew the original languages and caused problems for the traditionalists in his day.

All this is irrelevant. The simple FACT is that they were baptised in water – you accept this. All this trying to contrast in and into is nonsense. The distinction does not exist in decent translations. This is not the word of God. This is your peculiar interpretation.

The apostles came and laid hands on them and prayed and they received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

I note that you have avoided the point I made that Paul was still baptising in water 20 years after Pentecost, after according to you Peter & the Jerusalem crowd realised it was wrong, after Barnabus who according to you should have known better joined him, after he had been back to Jerusalem twice and nobody corrected him or commented on his baptising in water.

Nor have you shown where water baptism is condemned in sripture. You have tried (and failed) to deduce that this is so, but that is only your misinterpretation. You cannot show me one line of scripture condemning water baptism.

And you have failed to show any condemnation of water batism in the centuries which followed.


Peace

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Right after he was baptized in waterv and the Holy Spirit descended on him like a dove? What happened next? He became led of the Spirit! He did not have that before!

But it doesn't say he was baptized in the Spirit. That's merely an assumption on your part.No water!

Paul simply laid hands on them.... Where did you get 'water' from?

"baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" It had already been established from earlier in the Book of Acts that baptism involves water. You would understand that if you allowed Scripture to interperet Scripture rather than injecting your own fanciful interpretations. Since they received the Spirit after they were baptized, your theory of "baptism in the Spirit" doesn't fit.

 

[Schroeder]

So sin was destroyed in the flood? So, why was the cross still necessary?

well not totally, Sin had taken over all things so it had to be put in check so to speak. Sin is in your flesh cant truelly get rid of it untill our bodies are glorified. BUT the flood was sent becasue of the sin on the earth. And it WAS God WORK

Well, you can twist it all the way you want: "baptism" is not there in Titus 3:5. Water is there, but you say that doesn't count. Well whatever.

SORRY but water does NOT mean Baptism AT ALL, it means CLEANSING which is what the passage says the Washing(cleansing) of rebirth and renewal BY the Spirit. The word "and" does not seperate two different events BUT two things the Spirit does. the problem is when you see water and THINK baptism instead of what it TRUELLY means CLEANSING.

The word for regeneration is not the same as in John 3. Did you ever notice that? That is not what I said, nor is it what Scripture says. Being baptized in water is a request to God for a good conscience. That's what the Bible says....

Where, show me the verse or passage. i will quess you will say 1 Peter 3:20, But heb 9:14 says the blood gives us a clear conscience. and that is because it is the work of the SPirit which is Christ which is whos blood it is. and even this passage which mentions conscience i will give you that does NOT mention even close that we are to do water b aptism for that reason. there is NOT one passage in scripture that states CLEARLY why we are to do water baptism. the closest one is 1 cor 1 and it is still a little unclear, though i believe it shows it was done to show a association with Christ and his teachings. More to show you have chosen Christ as saviour. But CLearly not a appeal to God. HE KNOWS THE HEART OF MAN, he doesnt need us to do something to know that.

All passages where baptism is found have to do with water baptism, unless it is clear from context or wording that is otherwise. Give me one instance where "baptism" without any other evidence, means Spirit baptism.

which is apparently why you get it all confused. Prove to me it is about water. they BOTH do the same thing, or represent the same thing in the old covenant it was for renewal or cleansing to make pure, THOUGH it truelly did not do that, the baptism of Christ does this BUT TRUELLY does cleans you. HOW ABOUT you give me a few and i will show you that they are not WATER baptism. i will give you LESS then three passage referances to show it is NOT water baptism.

So, now you're agreeing that baptism does save??? Ah, the Holy Spirit had it wrong when Paul was told to be baptized and his sins washed away??? I fully agree..... But it is not Spirit baptism that saves us. No way. Who said "magical water"??? Nobody. It is a symbol. There is no power in the water whatsoever. But the what water baptism stands for is very powerful: it is the means by which one becomes and professes to be a Christian.....

the baptism of Christ does yes. it was METAPHORICAL NOT LITERAL when told to wash his sins away. you take it literale when you need to i see. If water baptism could do such a thing why would Christ have to shed is blood for sins. it is the blood of Christ that takes the sin or curse of sin being DEATH away. BUT in our FLESH it is always there that is why you and I still sin. that is why we are to be born again because it is the Spirit of Christ that is our new birth and what God sees and is what gets us to His blood. col. 2 the circumsision NOT of hands of men but of the SPirit. the next verse done through baptism(Spirit). other wise your thinking of water baptism MUST take on more then one role. which then makes it all powerfull. So it would NOt only be for a p[ledge of a good conscience BUT also to give us the Spirit give us the new birth wash sins away for forgiveness of sins to circumcise the sinfull nature ect ect. well the baptism of the SPirit is what cleanses us (washing as in Titus 3:5) and makes us reborn and renewed. what do you think salvation is. IT is the baptism, which is the same as receiving it, which does all you speak about the water seemingly being able to do. The reference is there because of what i said. REMEMBER they are speaking about the OLD covenant and relating it all to THAT not something NEW. what the water baptism and circumscision did then(not really but represented doing that) is what the Spirit baptism DOES NOW. THEY DID NOT CONTINUE WITH IT. ONE becomes a christian when he is saved and when he is saved he becomes a member of the Church and what does 1 cor 12:13 say HOW that occurs. by the SPIRIT BAPTISM. also read eph 1:13-14. if water baptism was so important the apostles would have i imagine spent a little more time in speaking of it and being a bit more clear that that is what they were speaking about. in the whole skeem of what is written it is a VERY small part of it all. and it MATTERS NOT how one proffesses to be a christian, it MATTERS ONLY how one LIVES IT OUT. THAT IS WHAT SHOWS YOU ARE WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE. One time acts mean NOTHING i am sorry to say. (at least in trying to PROVE you are what you say you are)

 

[Schroeder]

Where does it say "one baptism" in 1 Cor 12:13??? Because per 1 Cor 12:13 the Spirit baptism is already referred to in the "one body" of Eph 4:4. Therefore, the "one baptism" of Eph 4:5 must refer to water baptism.

that is a good one nice way to FIT in water baptism. it says ONE SPIRIT one BODY one faith on lord one God on baptism ect. so the SPirit part is in the "one" body not the "one" spirit. that does not even make since. if you will notice it mentions the trinity in that "one" this and that. lord God Spirit ect ect is ALL "ONE". you do NOT seperate any of them.SOO they are all TOGETHER NOT SEPERATE. SO water CANNOT BE A PART OF THAT.

That is not accurate. One is saved by faith, not by the Spirit.

no one is saved by GRACE THROUGH FAITH, which another way to say BELIEF( the correct belief, not the one you just believe but believe and accept in your heart) and if y ou will read Acts 15:8 with eph 1:13-14 you will see what emmediatly follows BELIEF. the Spirit. wh ich is the same as the baptism of the Spirit by Christ.

When one has believed and is thus saved, one receives the Spirit. Both Acts 10 and 19 clearly show that believers received the Spirit AND were water baptized. Separate events. You can accuse Peter and Paul to have been wrong, that's up to you....

that is right this receiving of the Spirit is the baptism of the Spirit. otherwise when do you say this baptism of the Spirit happens. they were not wrong never said they were i am saying your wrong not them. At least the way you interprate water baptism and its purpose. i believe that both our ideas may be a bit off but wont interfer with being a christian to badly. As in they wont keep us from living out what Christ commanded us to do to LOVE one another.

 

[Schroeder]

Sorry – should have been 4:36-37. That’s what comes of looking at the top of the page for the chapter no.



I’m establishing that the Philip who is baptising in Samaria is not an apostle. Therefore he doesn’t have the gift of laying on hands to call down the Holy Spirit. Hence why Peter & John came from Jerusalem to do this.



Just marking where Paul enters the story


Good, so we are agreed on the water baptism at this stage.

As SoldierOfTheKing said “In the name! Not into the name! Baptized in water on behalf of Jesus. Perfect example of how modern translations always make at least one new mistake for every one they correct. Even the NIV, if you read the footnotes at the bottom, cites "in" as an alternative translation.”

New American Bible – IN not INTO
New Jerusalem Bible – IN not INTO
NRSC – IN not iINTO
Good News – IN not INTO


​

But you have just accepted that they were baptised in water. This is what Philip understood by baptism. This is what he did with the Ethipoian – (see Acts 8:36-38 if you want the reference)


All this is irrelevant. The simple FACT is that they were baptised in water – you accept this. All this trying to contrast in and into is nonsense. The distinction does not exist in decent translations. This is not the word of God. This is your peculiar interpretation.

The apostles came and laid hands on them and prayed and they received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

I note that you have avoided the point I made that Paul was still baptising in water 20 years after Pentecost, after according to you Peter & the Jerusalem crowd realised it was wrong, after Barnabus who according to you should have known better joined him, after he had been back to Jerusalem twice and nobody corrected him or commented on his baptising in water.

Nor have you shown where water baptism is condemned in sripture. You have tried (and failed) to deduce that this is so, but that is only your misinterpretation. You cannot show me one line of scripture condemning water baptism.

And you have failed to show any condemnation of water batism in the centuries which followed.


Peace

you have TOTTALLY MISSED HERE WHOLE POINT which was VERY good and CLEAR. YES they were water baptized once, BUT NOT in this passage. they were not rewater baptized. and i have not read were she is condemming water baptism just that people REFUSE to understand it proberly and or but it into contect of scripture on how it was used and what it was used for. PAUL baptized BUT A FEW. So he WAS NOT water baptizing after those few he did water baptize. HE WAS HAPPY HE DID NOT. why would he be happy about that if it is as you say so important.

 

[Schroeder]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah & Assoc. were saved because they REMAINED IN THE ARK during the flood.
We Catholice are saved because we REMAIN IN OUR BAPTISM during our JOURNEY through this world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Protestants like to cover everything that requires a RITUAL with the magic word:..SYMBOLIC"
Adding "SYMBOLIC" to Scripture is " ALTERING THE GOSPEL " Gal. 1: 7

Perhaps when it comes time to RECEIVE their "eternal reward".... God will give them a "symbol",
insted of the REAL THING.

Like, maybe a POST CARD with a "picture of heaven" on one side
and on the other side: "Wish you were here, ... have a nice eternity " ::MI

"SYMBOLIC" is their "magic tarp" that covers over everything they don't want to deal with.

Best of LUCK to you...

my goodness how we have been lead astray. have you read heb 9:10 EXTERNAL REGUALTIONS UNTILL THE NEW ORDER. you have just replaced all the old covenant regulations with your new ones. they were saved because heb 11 says they in FAITH built it. they believed God and it was accredited to them as righteousness. you know the same as with abraham. they showed there faith or belief by obeying him in building the ARK (which reprresents WHAT) it represents Christ. so you may stay in your water baptism i will stay in the LORD ALMIGHTY.

 

[stone]

Is it necessary?

Does it say so in the bible?

 

[sawdust]

How can you say that , sawdust ? What is it the Lord requires of us that you can not give ?....when Jesus says:
"Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for i am Gentle and Humble of heart.... my yoke is easy and my burden is light..."

The very thing you say you can not give is what I love most about belonging to God.
are we talking about the same Lord ?

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. Jn.15:5

and

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Gal.2:20

There is nothing I have that He has not first given to me. Whatever I do, or think or say to live out my spiritual life? It is because the Lord has first given to me all that I need.

When we lay aside all our differences and stand back and look at what is the point of all this, of time, of history and even of our salvation? It is all about the Lord avenging Himself. That is, to show forth Himself as to who and what He truly is.

The only reason we can come to Him (as in the verse you quoted above) is because He first came to us. The only reason we are able to take His yoke upon us is because He has handed that yoke to us. We can give nothing back to Him that wasn't His to begin with.

My FAITH in Baptism is according to what The Apostles teach, and they claim that it DOES.
Romans 6: 3
1 Peter 3: 21
Mark 16: 16

I understand what you're saying and why you are saying it and I would not want to be seen as one who would dissuade a man from acting on faith. However I must continue asking questions as to what exactly did the Apostles teach. One man says one thing, another man says another thing. Both cannot be right. Only the truth can set one free and faith is only faith when it rests in the truth.

"The Lord is my Light and my Salvation, of whom shall I be afraid ?"
The only fear I know of now is that in my arrogance, I may be rude to a nice Lady like you.

I realised afterwards (next day) that my words may have been misunderstood. When I said your words sounded like a man afraid I didn't personally have you in mind. I was simply reflecting my many years of thoughts out loud in regards to men and fear. I was reminded of Adam's first words to the Lord after he sinned "I was afraid" (among other things). I apologise for the offense.

Seems to me I read in the book of Wisdom, or Sirach that
"Pride is the reservour of sin..."

These books you probably will not find in your Bible,
since the reformers tossed them, way back when they were reforming the bible.

Don't worry there is not too much that gets by this little black duck. I do own a bible with "those" books in them.

Thank you for your interesting post.
May God bless you and your entire family

...and the Peace of Christ to you

And to you and yours

peace

 

[GenemZ]

Sorry – should have been 4:36-37. That’s what comes of looking at the top of the page for the chapter no.



I’m establishing that the Philip who is baptising in Samaria is not an apostle. Therefore he doesn’t have the gift of laying on hands to call down the Holy Spirit.

That is not needed today. It was only needed in that short transition period where some had believed before the Holy Spirit was to be given, and had not yet heard the Gospel message. They had been saved up until then like OT saints used to get saved. The laying on of the hands was a short lived practice. I know. I received the Holy Spirit after reading a tract. It does not happen that way today. We do not have OT saints converting over to Church age believers anymore.

Good, so we are agreed on the water baptism at this stage.

I do not agree to as to why it was happening. You know that by now.

As SoldierOfTheKing said

“In the name! Not into the name! Baptized in water on behalf of Jesus.

​

It really can mean "into." For the very meaning of the Greek word baptizo means to be placed INTO something! But, it was not meant to go into a room, etc. It meant to be placed into something, or a situation, that one became identified with.... to be made one with.

So? Some translations will render it, 'into.' Some, simply 'in.' Yet, the meaning baptize was to be placed INTO something. So, the translations that speak of "into" are combining the meaning of 'baptizo' with the word 'in.'

Its an interpretive approach as a means to render a more accurate understanding of the meaning, rather than giving a literal translation, yet resort to using the transliteration "baptize" rather than attempt to translate its meaning.

A way to use it today would be like saying when President Clinton was found out to have cheated with Monica Lewinsky, he was baptized into the world of exposure and shame. Or, he was immersed in exposure and shame. The word is bit akward to translate, for we know its meaning by its usage, rather than its true meaning.

Perfect example of how modern translations always make at least one new mistake for every one they correct. Even the NIV, if you read the footnotes at the bottom, cites "in" as an alternative translation.”

​

A legitimate translation, though.

The Amplified Bible translation attempts to give the meaning for the transliterated Greek word "baptismo."

Here are some examples. It will help clarify.

Acts 1:5 amplified bible
"For John baptized with water, but not many days from now you shall be baptized with ( placed in, introduced into) the Holy Spirit.

​

See what it reflects when the word "baptizo" is interpreted rather than transliterated?

And....


Acts 8:16 amplified bible
For He had not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

​

New American Bible – IN not INTO
New Jerusalem Bible – IN not INTO
NRSC – IN not iINTO
Good News – IN not INTO

​

​

​

​

​

​

Technically correct. But they never translate "baptizo" for us. If they did? It would become INTO.

​

But you have just accepted that they were baptised in water. This is what Philip understood by baptism. This is what he did with the Ethipoian – (see Acts 8:36-38 if you want the reference)

You need to go back an read this thread over for the first time. I spent a lot of time and work. After you see what I said? Then cut and paste what you want. Then we''ll see what's what.

All this is irrelevant. The simple FACT is that they were baptised in water – you accept this.

You really need to go back and read my previous posts. I am assuming you have not. You act like you have not.

All this trying to contrast in and into is nonsense.

That would make it easy for you to have your way. But, like I said. Baptism is never a translation. Its a transliteration from baptismo. The meaning is never given via transliteration. Which means? To be immersed into a situation or thing......

When it says "baptized in water?" That means water was the substance that the person was baptized INTO. Baptized in fire, means to be placed into fire.

Once you get the meaning? You get why "into" is a legitimate translation. Its interpretive, because baptismo is not a word we readily use in our culture.

And you have failed to show any condemnation of water batism in the centuries which followed.

Its not me that failed.....

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Carlos Vigil]

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. Jn.15:5
and
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Gal.2:20

There is nothing I have that He has not first given to me. Whatever I do, or think or say to live out my spiritual life? It is because the Lord has first given to me all that I need.

When we lay aside all our differences and stand back and look at what is the point of all this, of time, of history and even of our salvation? It is all about the Lord avenging Himself. That is, to show forth Himself as to who and what He truly is.

Is, "The Lord Avanging Himself"...
and, "The Lord Revealing Himself"...
close enough in meaning for our discussion, in your opinion ?

The only reason we can come to Him (as in the verse you quoted above) is because He first came to us. The only reason we are able to take His yoke upon us is because He has handed that yoke to us. We can give nothing back to Him that wasn't His to begin with.

Well.... We can always say "YES" to him, as he OFFERS.
or as he ASKS of us.
For instance, .....We are free to OFFER or NOT TO OFFER our BODIES as a living sacrifice with Christ to God,
As St. Paul BEGS us in Romans 12: 1

I understand what you're saying and why you are saying it and I would not want to be seen as one who would dissuade a man from acting on faith. However I must continue asking questions as to
(A). what exactly did the Apostles teach.
One man says one thing, another man says another thing. Both cannot be right.
(B). Only the truth can set one free and faith is only faith when it rests in the truth.

I agree .......

(A). The "TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES" is Referred to in Matt. 28:20, .....Acts 2: 42, ..... 2 Tim. 2: 2,...3;7, .....2 Peter 1:19, .....Jude :3 .......to name a few.
Basically, it is what the Apostles taught in ONE ACCORD before they put the Bible (New Testament) together.
Now days it is commonly known as "THE CATECHUMENATE", or "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.
now approaching 2000 years old.

(B). I love it !
"Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices with the Truth. 1 Cor. 13: 6
you are already rooted on solid Rock. Just let that LOVE OF TRUTH draw you.

Now I see why it is REFRESHING to partake in a conversation that has no "attack & defensiveness" only love of Truth !

I realised afterwards (next day) that my words may have been misunderstood. When I said your words sounded like a man afraid I didn't personally have you in mind. I was simply reflecting my many years of thoughts out loud in regards to men and fear. I was reminded of Adam's first words to the Lord after he sinned "I was afraid" (among other things). I apologise for the offense.

Apology accepted, although No offense was made or taken.
So, if you do offend me later on.....you are already accepted.
Strange but True.

Don't worry there is not too much that gets by this little black duck. I do own a bible with "those" books in them.

And to you and yours

peace

If you ever do read them you will find that Jesus and the Apostles quoted them many times.

BTW, I love ducks and other birds too,
I do Watercolor Paintings of them

I think we must change our USA motto from
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
to,
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of TRUTH".

i think the quality of Life across America would QUADRUPLE.
(thinking small)

Good Night and God Bless

 

[TreesNTrees]

Acts 1 has an interesting verse, where Jesus states that John did indeed baptize with water, BUT, ye shall be baptized with holy spirit.

Jesus did not say AND - a conjunction - but, "but", which can mean "instead of" or, a replacement for.

How people believe on this subject can be affected by the degree of dispensationalism that they believe - the times of administrations.

In other words, the specific "law" startted with Moses, and did it end with Jesus, the end of the law, the fulfilment of the law? Was Christ on earth an administration with special conditions? Who were the gospels addressed too? Who is Acts or the epistles addressed to?

Does the verse apply to baptism, which menitons that "whatsoever things" which were written "aforetime' were written for our learning?

Are some things for learning, but not for doing?

 

[Carlos Vigil]

my goodness how we have been lead astray. have you read
(A). heb 9:10 EXTERNAL REGUALTIONS UNTILL THE NEW ORDER.
you have just replaced all the old covenant regulations with your new ones. they were saved because heb 11 says they in FAITH built it. they believed God and it was accredited to them as righteousness. you know the same as with abraham.

they showed there faith or belief by obeying him
in building the ARK (which reprresents WHAT) it represents Christ.

(B). so you may stay in your water baptism i will stay in the LORD ALMIGHTY.

Don't ovrlook Heb. 11: 39

So you are showing your faith or belief by OBEYING & doing what ?




(A). Yes i read Heb. 9: 10, .....so what is "THE NEW ORDER" from your perspective ?

(B). And when you SEE the LORD ALMIGHTY..... he will want to know what you did with your Baptism !

He will show you Mark 16: 16

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

It's not "absolutely" neccessary, but it's what Jesus did!

 

[belladonic-haze]

I have heard from all over that it is commanded that we be baptized and that it is absolutely necessary, though not salvation-dependant, on revcieving water baptism. I now believe, after further study, that the water baptism ritual is not completely necessary, but that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (which happens at the moment of belief and needs not happen again and repeat itself) is necessary. What is the board's opinion on this matter?Is the ritual of Water Baptism absolutely necessary?

When I did my confirmation last year the Minister put a cross on my forehead with water that is also used for baptism....That was very intense.

But I was born in a Catholic hospital (my parents are catholic, I am a liberal protestant) I was baptized immediately because I was sure to die during the first 12 hours of my life.......

Nowadays (Thank God!) many priest give the child a funeral even if it isn't baptized. (Happened to a child of a relative of me) The child was still-born and could not be baptized. They are catholic too. The priest said: babies have an innocent soul.......I will give this child a funeral as I would do for a baptized child.

So, yea, I do not think it is absolutely neccessary, and being baptized as an adult is so much more intense and beautiful...

Does this make any sense?

 

[GenemZ]

Acts 1 has an interesting verse, where Jesus states that John did indeed baptize with water, BUT, ye shall be baptized with holy spirit.

Jesus did not say AND - a conjunction - but, "but", which can mean "instead of" or, a replacement for.

Its amazing how the debate never stops there. They always say, "but!" ... to the but.

How people believe on this subject can be affected by the degree of dispensationalism that they believe - the times of administrations.

If we could substitute 'understanding', for 'believe?' That's what I see the problem is. Anyone can believe anything. Not everone is willing to be made able to understand.

Proverbs 19:8 niv
"He who gets wisdom loves his own soul; he who cherishes understanding prospers."
​

Understanding is the issue. Correct understanding renders belief with substance.

Its easy to believe what one wants to believe. Anyone can enter belief. Just look at all the cults out there! Understanding is another doorway altogether.

Jeremiah 3:15 niv
"Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding."
​

Too many feed us rituals and traditions of men... Evidently, they are not after the heart of God. But, after the approval of men's thinking.

Galatians 1:10 (New International Version)
"Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."
​

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[chesslord243]

Baptism is not necessary, but Jesus tells us to do it. Jesus also tells us to eat the bread and drink the wine, but most people only eat the bread even though Jesus tells us to do both. Think about it.

 

[Iollain]

maybe the op should have asked what would you tell a new believer if they asked if they would have to be baptised, or do they not do that anymore.

 

[jad123]

Baptism is not necessary, but Jesus tells us to do it. Jesus also tells us to eat the bread and drink the wine, but most people only eat the bread even though Jesus tells us to do both. Think about it.

Just becasue "most people" only eat the bread does not not make it right.