Water Baptism

[heymikey80]

I responded to this in my post #6 on page 1. Paul did not re-baptize those at Ephesus. They received the Holy Ghost by Paul just laying hands on them.

Would appreciate your response to it.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Here's Paul's response again:

"He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word" Eph 5:26

 

[8TarHeel8]

Here's Paul's response again:

"He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word" Eph 5:26

Good lord. Where are you getting the notion that this is describing a baptism? You are saying that Paul is contradicting himself in the verse quoted above. There is one baptism (Eph 4:5) and it has nothing to do with water (1 Cor 12:13). Please show us how you are interpreting the verse above as a baptism when Paul states that our one baptism is by one spirit, no water.

 

[heymikey80]

Good lord. Where are you getting the notion that this is describing a baptism? You are saying that Paul is contradicting himself in the verse quoted above. There is one baptism (Eph 4:5) and it has nothing to do with water (1 Cor 12:13). Please show us how you are interpreting the verse above as a baptism when Paul states that our one baptism is by one spirit, no water.

You're saying there's no "washing of water by the word"? That would simply contradict Paul's flat-out statement.

The "one baptism" is by the Holy Spirit -- His baptism is ordinarily not dry according to 5:26. The Holy Spirit baptizes, He does not simply "indwell and call it baptism".

 

[heymikey80]

I was also interested in another verse quoted from Ananias, the person God told to go and give Paul his sight and to have Paul baptized.

'For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ Acts 22:15-16
​

 

[eph3Nine]

ananias did the only thing he knew. The Mystery was not yet fully understood by Paul. When he realized the new information given to him and understood it...he said this:"for Christ sent me NOT to baptize but to preach the gospel"

 

[eph3Nine]

You're saying there's no "washing of water by the word"? That would simply contradict Paul's flat-out statement.

The "one baptism" is by the Holy Spirit -- His baptism is ordinarily not dry according to 5:26. The Holy Spirit baptizes, He does not simply "indwell and call it baptism".

YOU are quite mistaken here. Thats exactly what the HS does. HE PLACES you INTO the NEW CREATION...placing INTO< or being fully identified with something or someone else is the true biblical meaning of "baptism" ...of all the times the word is used in scripture , it is most often used when describing something happening having absolutely NOTHING to do with water at ALL.

"churchianity" tells us that every time the word baptism is used it means "WATER"....scripture doesnt support this misconception at ALL.

 

[heymikey80]

YOU are quite mistaken here. Thats exactly what the HS does. HE PLACES you INTO the NEW CREATION...placing INTO< or being fully identified with something or someone else is the true biblical meaning of "baptism" ...of all the times the word is used in scripture , it is most often used when describing something happening having absolutely NOTHING to do with water at ALL.

So in your view Paul is just about to take back Eph 5:26 ... somewhere ... somehow? It seems to me when he says "water" it's pretty clear he means "water".

And when Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew, that wasn't water?

And when the Jewish people baptized couches and other implements, that wasn't water?

And ... "I baptized no one except Crispus, Gaius, and ... oh yes, the household of Stephanus" must not mean water baptism, therefore .... those poor people didn't receive the Spirit's baptism.

Look, I have no problem accepting that some uses of the term are illustrative or hyperbolic. But other uses are clearly denotative.

I don't conclude that Jesus didn't die on the Cross just because He told His followers to "take up your cross and follow me."

So I am not mistaken. In fact some kind of connection between the visible and invisible has been asserted in every ancient treatment of baptism, and among most every Reformer as well.

"churchianity" tells us that every time the word baptism is used it means "WATER"....scripture doesnt support this misconception at ALL.

So you're asserting that baptism is entirely from churchianity. Frankly your church is promulgating this new idea. So to me it's two churchianities clashing. I don't see this as a valid argument in the least: "meet the new boss; same as the old boss."

 

[msortwell]

The question I raised was, "What baptism is mentioned in Acts 19:5?"

The response that I received from Dispy follows.

I responded to this in my post #6 on page 1. Paul did not re-baptize those at Ephesus. They received the Holy Ghost by Paul just laying hands on them.

Would appreciate your response to it.

The following seems to be what Dispy was referring to in the referenced post.

Those that Paul laid hand on were citizens of Ephesus and were baptized by John FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:38). Baptism was never for the purpose of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. That was a baptism by Jesus, without water, after the repentant was baptized in water for the remission of sins. So, if they already had their sins washed away, Why do they have to be re-baptized in water again? They received the Holy Spirit by Paul just laying his hand on them, just as those in Acts 8:17.

My response . . .

Those that Paul laid hand on were citizens of Ephesus and were baptized by John FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:38).

True. Taken right out of the text. But it seems to have no direct link to the question that I asked.

Baptism was never for the purpose of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. .

Relative to any time of ceremonial baptism, I believe I woud agree. Still, how does this relate to the question that I asked?

That was a baptism by Jesus, without water, after the repentant was baptized in water for the remission of sins..

What is the "That" to which you are referring here? WHAT was a baptism by Jesus, without water, etc.? The baptism that I was asking about is the one in Acts 19:5. The Scriptures say that they were baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus" not by Jesus. Are you saying that the baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is a baptism "by Jesus?" If so, this would seem to give very little credence to some very significant differences of expression. When the disciples were commanded to baptize, it was to be "in the name of" the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." However, it was never intimated that obedience to this command was tantamount to the recipients of such baptisms being baptized BY the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding completely and missed what you were trying to draw my attention to in the post.

What IS the baptism in the name of Jesus that Acts 19:5 documents as having occurred on that historical occasion?

Was it a ceremonial baptism (with water)?

Are you saying that it was a Spiritual baptism?

Directing me to post number 6 on page 1 didnt' help me much in understanding your interpretation of the verse in question.

Mike

 

[Dispy]

The question I raised was, "What baptism is mentioned in Acts 19:5?"

What IS the baptism in the name of Jesus that Acts 19:5 documents as having occurred on that historical occasion?

Was it a ceremonial baptism (with water)?

Are you saying that it was a Spiritual baptism?

Mike[/QUOTE]

Let me explain my interpretation of verses 2-6, and answer your questions at the same time. Too many interpret this verse to mean that Paul re-baptized those at Ephesus in water, which I believe is incorrect.

Acts 19: 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

When those at Ephesus heard what John said, they were water baptized by John.

THEN

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

They received the Holy Spirit by Paul just laying hands on them, just as those in Acts 8:17. There was no need for Paul to re-baptize them in water. They were already baptized in water, by John, for the remission of sins.

The baptism of John was for the remission of sins and performed in water (Matthew 3:11). and by Peter in Acts 2:38.

The Holy Spirit baptism was by Jesus ( as promised in Matthew 3:11) after the repentant was water baptized (Acts 2:38)

Today, in this dispensation of grace, the Holy Spirit is the One that baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ. There is no water involved. It is a DRY-CLEANING.

Hope this helps to explain my position a little better.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[8TarHeel8]

You're saying there's no "washing of water by the word"? That would simply contradict Paul's flat-out statement.

The "one baptism" is by the Holy Spirit -- His baptism is ordinarily not dry according to 5:26. The Holy Spirit baptizes, He does not simply "indwell and call it baptism".

heymikey80, pay attention. The verse you quoted does not apply to the thread topic. I gave you the scripture passage pertaining to baptism. Did you read it or just skip over it?:

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

Ok, mikey, where's the water in that verse? Our one baptism (Eph 4:5) is being described in this verse and H2O is not present. You jumped to Eph 5:26 to make a case for water baptism by twisting the meaning of the verse. If Paul had meant to describe a baptism with water then he would have identified the preacher as the one doing the baptism. Since when does the Holy Spirit baptize anyone with water?

 

[heymikey80]

heymikey80, pay attention. The verse you quoted does not apply to the thread topic.

Hm, a little more attentiveness to the quotation's context might help, yes. The verse I quoted is targeted directly at the comment of Dispy that Ephesus didn't receive water baptism. When Paul writes to Ephesus do you think Paul isn't writing to Ephesus? I don't know how much more clearly to put the point.

I gave you the scripture passage pertaining to baptism. Did you read it or just skip over it?

No, it simply doesn't conclude anything which draws a distinction on this issue. The Spirit baptizes us into one body. There is one baptism. I assert that baptism is not normally dry.

Clearly being made to drink of the Spirit is not a baptism of the Spirit. "Baptism" always refers to a washing or covering, not a drinking. Paul is pulling illustrations of both sacraments: where baptism is by the Spirit, and where drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ is also by the Spirit. 'In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, &#8220;This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.&#8221;' 1 Cor 11:25

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

Ok, mikey, where's the water in that verse? Our one baptism (Eph 4:5) is being described in this verse and H2O is not present.

It's just as much present as the communion cup. "Baptism" presumes "bapho", "washing". You're presuming that the Spirit must not use water in this passage, and yet the absence of mention is no mention of its absence.

But here, to show the absurdity of assuming absence of mention is mention of absence, let's go back to 1 Cor 1. Paul doesn't mention water there, either. So he must not mean water baptism there, either! Paul's doing his own dry baptisms apparently.

You jumped to Eph 5:26 to make a case for water baptism by twisting the meaning of the verse.

I "jumped" from Ep 4 to Ep 5:26. Whereas you've "jumped" from an entirely different letter, to Corinth, which itself doesn't show anything sound about the use of water. Paul merely assumes you'll pick up the allusion to water baptism from the word "baptize".

If Paul had meant to describe a baptism with water then he would have identified the preacher as the one doing the baptism. Since when does the Holy Spirit baptize anyone with water?

The Holy Spirit of God is the One baptizing everyone who truly receives the baptism of Christ. If God is not making a vow in baptism, then there is no sure word of promise in any baptism -- dry or wet. But if God on the other hand institutes a particular way of vowing His covenant to you, are you free to reject it?

 

[Schroeder]

This is out of context. Paul was dismayed that people were considering baptisms by different people to be different religions (which may sound familiar).


But Paul's actual statement clears this up. In Greek Paul didn't say he was sent to not baptize, but that he wasn't sent to baptize:

I give thanks to God that no one of you did I baptize, except Crispus and Gaius -- that no one may say that to my own name I did baptize; and I did baptize also Stephanas' household -- further, I have not known if I did baptize any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but -- to proclaim good news 1 Cor 1:14-17

​

Essentially Paul was setting up churches. At the time historically, Deacons were actually the people who performed the baptisms. So Paul only baptized people before deacons could be appointed and take over the task.

Paul was relieved he couldn't be accused of baptizing in his own name. That was his relief.

To expand this into a theological statement against baptism breaks the intent of the passage. Paul isn't against baptism. He's against divisions based on who baptised whom.

your not getting the actual point. He said he was glad that he did not baptize in his name. as in saying i baptize you in the name of Paul. those he was yelling at were associating themselves with the one who did the baptism. as in If Cephas baptized you you would say you did it to associate yourself with him and what he taught, or if Apollos did it to you you asssociated with what he taught. The Point Paul was making is that the ONE who baptised you is NOT the one you are associating yourself with. IT is the one who he is TEACHING about, that is CHRIST. SO it was not the teacher you got baptised for it was who he was teaching about. That is the whole reason baptism was done for. it was NOT a command or ordance, it was a COMMON way those people in that time asssociated themselves with a group. it was a public declaration of what you believed. THAT IS ABSOLUTLY ALL IT WAS USED FOR. it did NOT represent anything but that. it sems to fit as a symbolic use for his death and resurrection but there is NO scriptual support for this. dont see the problem if that is what you wish to do it for but it is not commanded. not even for the JEWS. PETER did not even teach it for salvation.

 

[Schroeder]

This question may already have been addressed. But if so, the answer may bear repeating.

What baptism is mentioned in Acts 19:5?

Acts 19:3-5
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism .
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. KJV

If baptism was not necessary for obedience in the Pauline dispensation . . .

What is this baptism mentioned in the 5th verse?

Why were these folks baptized?

In what way was Paul complicit in this baptism?

Blessings,

Mike

It does not say they were again water baptized it says he placed his hands on them and they received the SPirit. that is the baptism of the SPirit. Read 1 cor 6:11. a verse not much quoted, but it would clear up this whole "in the name of the Lord" phrase used suposidly only in water baptism " And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and by the SPirit of our GOd. Titus 3:5 says we are saved by the washing of rebirth and renewal by the SPirit. you could say that the washed is water baptism but Titus says otherwise and so does 1 Peter 1:2.

 

[eph3Nine]

No covenant with us...we are under GRACE , NOT covenant.

Baptism means to be identified with something. For the most part, the word baptism is used in connection with things NOT having to do with water at all.

The ONE baptism of Eph 4:5 is DRY. The HS is the one who places us (or identifies US with the death burial and resurrection of Christ) INTO the Body of Christ.

THAT is the ONLY baptism necessary today. Water was REQUIRED for the JEWISH program for cleansing...as they were the NATION Of PRIESTS.

To ADD to the ONE baptism in scripture is to make of NONE EFFECT the Crosswork of Christ.

 

[WAB]

No covenant with us...we are under GRACE , NOT covenant.

Baptism means to be identified with something. For the most part, the word baptism is used in connection with things NOT having to do with water at all.

The ONE baptism of Eph 4:5 is DRY. The HS is the one who places us (or identifies US with the death burial and resurrection of Christ) INTO the Body of Christ.

THAT is the ONLY baptism necessary today. Water was REQUIRED for the JEWISH program for cleansing...as they were the NATION Of PRIESTS.

To ADD to the ONE baptism in scripture is to make of NONE EFFECT the Crosswork of Christ.

So... There is no NEW COVENANT?

Never thought a "Dispy to the max!" would ever deny such. Oh well....

 

[eph3Nine]

So... There is no NEW COVENANT?

Never thought a "Dispy to the max!" would ever deny such. Oh well....

I said we arent under ANY covenant today, NEW or otherwise! The NEW covenant will be made (FUTURE) with the NATION that God made the OLD Covenant with: IE:ISRAEL!!

I didnt say there was no new covenant! Please stop misquoting me to your own embarrassment.

The NEW COVENANT is NOT in operation today, NO. But it WILL be when God again resumes dealing with the audience to whom it DOES refer....IE: ISRAEL.

We are under the dispensation of the Grace of God, or the Gospel of Christ today.

It must be very difficult trying to cooperate with God when you refuse to acknowledge the program He is presently IN today. I would find it terribly confusing.

 

[WAB]

I said we arent under ANY covenant today, NEW or otherwise! The NEW covenant will be made (FUTURE) with the NATION that God made the OLD Covenant with: IE:ISRAEL!!

I didnt say there was no new covenant! Please stop misquoting me to your own embarrassment.

The NEW COVENANT is NOT in operation today, NO. But it WILL be when God again resumes dealing with the audience to whom it DOES refer....IE: ISRAEL.

We are under the dispensation of the Grace of God, or the Gospel of Christ today.

It must be very difficult trying to cooperate with God when you refuse to acknowledge the program He is presently IN today. I would find it terribly confusing.

Whoops! ... What happened to the "ignore" bit?

 

[eph3Nine]

Whoops! ... What happened to the "ignore" bit?

Dont worry...you are back on it!

 

[WAB]

Dont worry...you are back on it!

Whew... what a relief that is...

 

[eph3Nine]

Great feature , by the way! Yeee haw