Water Baptism

[heymikey80]

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.

Two things. Baptism is commanded (Mt 28:18-20), and it's alluded to quite often in its imagery (Ep 5:26, Heb 10:22, 1 Pet 3:20 as well as many, many other references to "baptism" in general, ambiguously pointing both to baptism by the Spirit as well as the external rite of water).

I agree that Paul isn't addressing the question directly, and I also agree with you that Paul is happy he didn't baptize many in Corinth, to avoid the risk that they would assume he was baptizing into his own little group (ala John, likely). It is still a reference to Paul's following the command, and baptizing people in Corinth, in water.

 

[eph3Nine]

Water baptism is NEVER found in our instructions. We have the ONE baptism of Eph 4:5. ONE plus one does not equal ONE, but TWO! Either you believe the scriptures or you are promoting another gospel of a different kind!

Paul said, "Christ sent me NOT to baptize (with water) but to preach the gospel"...If he was preaching PETERS gospel then he would have included water baptism. He wasnt and he didnt.

 

[heymikey80]

Paul said, "Christ sent me NOT to baptize (with water) but to preach the gospel"...If he was preaching PETERS gospel then he would have included water baptism. He wasnt and he didnt.

Of course Paul did include water baptism (the surrounding passages demand that Paul did indeed baptize with water).

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 1 Cor 1:14-15
​

Paul gave the reason why he was glad he didn't baptize, too. It had nothing to do with "Oh, water baptism isn't instructed for you in my dispensation." He was glad "lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name." So the explanation why Paul wasn't baptizing as much is false, and the assertion that baptism is "never found" is false. Paul baptized, and his sole reason for being happy with not baptizing was that divisions were deprecating the very meaning of baptism.

One might just as well assert Paul's "It's not the Lord's Supper you eat" in 1 Cor 11 means you shouldn't take the Lord's Supper. Paul is making a similar argument there: it's not against the Supper or Baptism, but Paul argues against the way Corinth is dividing the Body of Christ ... even though they, of course, think they're rightly dividing the Body of Christ.

 

[Schroeder]

Two things. Baptism is commanded (Mt 28:18-20), and it's alluded to quite often in its imagery (Ep 5:26, Heb 10:22, 1 Pet 3:20 as well as many, many other references to "baptism" in general, ambiguously pointing both to baptism by the Spirit as well as the external rite of water).

again this is not about water. other wise it would be stated as ".. make disciples of all nations "BY" baptising them..." but it says "...of all nations, baptising ..." it is a COMMA not a BY. the comma baptising is making it say by becoming a disciple they join the Church, a reference to 1 cor 12:13. through the SPirit. So it does not mean the Sprit or water baptism but SO you could switch the word baptism to WHICH JOINS THEM INTO THE TRINITY WHICH IS THE BODY WHICH IS THE CHURCH. Eph 5:26 says washing of the WORD. not washing with water. heb 10:22 water is not pure BUT the SPirit is. is it not. read titus 3:5. and of course 1 Peter 3:20 which should be read with heb 9:14. It is one or the other because scripture never puts them both together. there is only ONE baptism.

I agree that Paul isn't addressing the question directly, and I also agree with you that Paul is happy he didn't baptize many in Corinth, to avoid the risk that they would assume he was baptizing into his own little group (ala John, likely). It is still a reference to Paul's following the command, and baptizing people in Corinth, in water.

not at all since he clearly say he was NOT sent to baptize. remember who WAS sent to baptize. John the baptist. His baptism was to point to some one. if water baptism now did this then why would Paul say he was NOT sent to do it. It was not a matter of salvation to do or not. he gives it no importance in regards to salvation. he says that it was used for association and bing looked at incorrectly when done. As i explained in my post.

 

[heymikey80]

again this is not about water. other wise it would be stated as ".. make disciples of all nations "BY" baptising them..." but it says "...of all nations, baptising ..." it is a COMMA not a BY. the comma baptising is making it say by becoming a disciple they join the Church, a reference to 1 cor 12:13. through the SPirit. So it does not mean the Sprit or water baptism but SO you could switch the word baptism to WHICH JOINS THEM INTO THE TRINITY WHICH IS THE BODY WHICH IS THE CHURCH. Eph 5:26 says washing of the WORD. not washing with water. heb 10:22 water is not pure BUT the SPirit is. is it not. read titus 3:5. and of course 1 Peter 3:20 which should be read with heb 9:14. It is one or the other because scripture never puts them both together. there is only ONE baptism.

Mmm, checking the grammar, Jesus says "As you have been going, make disciples ..., baptizing ... and teaching ..." Essentially baptism is placed in equal grammatical context with "teaching them to observe ..." It's associated with making disciples, just as teaching is associated with making disciples. Or would you say "teaching" isn't a command, either? They're both part of the command to make disciples: you make disciples, baptizing and teaching are in that process.

And it is not "one or the other", any more, as I've said on another thread, Redemption is either the Crucifixion or our Spiritual Salvation. They are connected, they are closely associated.

'For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.' Ac 10:46-48
​

See the reasoning involved: water baptism is associated with the Spirit's reception.

not at all since he clearly say he was NOT sent to baptize. remember who WAS sent to baptize. John the baptist. His baptism was to point to some one. if water baptism now did this then why would Paul say he was NOT sent to do it. It was not a matter of salvation to do or not. he gives it no importance in regards to salvation. he says that it was used for association and bing looked at incorrectly when done. As i explained in my post.

Paul says it was not intended that he was sent to baptize but to evangelize, sure. Need I say what's so clear in 1 Cor 1, Paul did baptize. He was under no prohibition regarding baptism. He wasn't instructed not to baptize, and in fact he thought it was important enough to baptize people (here, the Philippian jailer, Lydia's household, Ephesus). In point of fact even though Paul himself didn't baptize many people, "many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." Ac 18:8 This points out active baptism by the church, under Paul's knowing approval.

In Corinth Paul later found and wrote that people were distorting the Gospel when some celebrity Apostle came and baptized them, and this divided the church. But Paul knew he was not sent with the intent that he directly perform the baptisms under his preaching -- and to support that assertion he pointed out he only baptized a handful of people in Corinth. Paul was sent to announce the Gospel. It's still quite clear from Acts, he approved of baptizing people, and he baptized people when he was the only source of it. This is consistent with historical accounts (Apostolic Constitutions, Hippolytus), where deacons were early given the task of baptizing people.

As the elemental-power view of baptism developed the elements of baptism were handed over to the elders, then the bishop, and the necessary association of the elements with the Spirit's work were cast into theology. But it was neither separation nor absolute dependency that characterized baptism in the early church: people were baptized with water to confirm and to associate them with the Spirit's work.

 

[Schroeder]

Mmm, checking the grammar, Jesus says "As you have been going, make disciples ..., baptizing ... and teaching ..." Essentially baptism is placed in equal grammatical context with "teaching them to observe ..." It's associated with making disciples, just as teaching is associated with making disciples. Or would you say "teaching" isn't a command, either? They're both part of the command to make disciples: you make disciples, baptizing and teaching are in that process.

you are twisting it all around. it is stated just the way i wrote. NKJV. go make disciples, baptizing(joining them) INTO the...., and TEACHING them.., so it is in correct order. you make a disciple, it joins them into the Church, because they have been SPiritualy baptized which does this joining, and once they have the Spirit to help them understand,(1 cor 2:10-12) they can be taught. I dont see your idea of it. and yes i do not think it is a command to do anything. especialy before salvation, but GOd does not command us to be saved. and he doesnt really command us to do anything in this verse. it is highly recommonded but not commanded. in verse 20 he says to teach all things i have commanded you. did he command water baptism before this verse. nope. only one process make syou a disciple. belief in Christ. once here you grow from teachings but you are already a disciple.

And it is not "one or the other", any more, as I've said on another thread, Redemption is either the Crucifixion or our Spiritual Salvation. They are connected, they are closely associated.

'For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.' Ac 10:46-48

​

See the reasoning involved: water baptism is associated with the Spirit's reception.

does he say WHY he makes them get water baptised. nope but we know they did follow other gods or beliefs, and to get water baptized in the name of Christ, showed you put aside those past beliefs and accepted Christs. they were gentiles who the jews accused of folowing many types of beliefs. Thia is why water baptism was so often used at this time. 1 cor 1 shows that it is a association. thsat is why Paul was on there case about it. they were still not seeing the point of doing it. thye were still thinking physical and not spiritual in who the disciples or apostles were speaking of.

Paul says it was not intended that he was sent to baptize but to evangelize, sure. Need I say what's so clear in 1 Cor 1, Paul did baptize. He was under no prohibition regarding baptism. He wasn't instructed not to baptize, and in fact he thought it was important enough to baptize people (here, the Philippian jailer, Lydia's household, Ephesus). In point of fact even though Paul himself didn't baptize many people, "many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." Ac 18:8 This points out active baptism by the church, under Paul's knowing approval.

i never say he did not. it is clear he did. the point is why he did it and what it is was for. i believe 1 cor 1 makes it clear. it was important then to show you truelly believed what you confess as true. they believed a lot of things and it was done to show a public confession of leaving there past beliefs and gods. i dont see the harm now of doing it, but it should be the same reason as then and explaned better. churches have you do it to show you recognize what that church stands for, to show you agree with there teaching or way of teaching. the idea of it showing the death and ressurection is a add on and not found or explained as such in scripture. still dont see the problem with this either but it is not in scripture as being as such. There is only two commands given in scripture clear commands love thy neighbor and love thy God. Yes the commands have ways of living to fulfill them which is what he is speaking of in matt. 28:20. in a since how to LOVE correctly.

In Corinth Paul later found and wrote that people were distorting the Gospel when some celebrity Apostle came and baptized them, and this divided the church. But Paul knew he was not sent with the intent that he directly perform the baptisms under his preaching -- and to support that assertion he pointed out he only baptized a handful of people in Corinth. Paul was sent to announce the Gospel. It's still quite clear from Acts, he approved of baptizing people, and he baptized people when he was the only source of it. This is consistent with historical accounts (Apostolic Constitutions, Hippolytus), where deacons were early given the task of baptizing people.

it divided the Church because they didnt recognoize what they were being baptized for. it was to show they believed in Christ NOT that they liked how so and so taught or spoke or whatever. that was what they were doing when they believed all the other beliefs and gods. Paul wanted a honest believer. and again i never said he didnt. i am telling why it was done.

As the elemental-power view of baptism developed the elements of baptism were handed over to the elders, then the bishop, and the necessary association of the elements with the Spirit's work were cast into theology. But it was neither separation nor absolute dependency that characterized baptism in the early church: people were baptized with water to confirm and to associate them with the Spirit's work.

yes correct they were slowly added into it later on as is a lot of other useless stuff. prove that with scripture. it was not used to show the SPirit work. it was used to confirm and associsate themselves with Christ and his work on the cross. to show they truelly believed and would follow his teachings. but all in all i dont seet he harm in what you say. it isnt that far off anywho. But i think it gets taken way out of context with scripture and used to make division when none should be there. It is all about spirituality and if some need a physical substance to relate to it then that is fine.

 

[WAB]

again this is not about water. other wise it would be stated as ".. make disciples of all nations "BY" baptising them..." but it says "...of all nations, baptising ..." it is a COMMA not a BY. the comma baptising is making it say by becoming a disciple they join the Church, a reference to 1 cor 12:13. through the SPirit. So it does not mean the Sprit or water baptism but SO you could switch the word baptism to WHICH JOINS THEM INTO THE TRINITY WHICH IS THE BODY WHICH IS THE CHURCH. Eph 5:26 says washing of the WORD. not washing with water. heb 10:22 water is not pure BUT the SPirit is. is it not. read titus 3:5. and of course 1 Peter 3:20 which should be read with heb 9:14. It is one or the other because scripture never puts them both together. there is only ONE baptism.

not at all since he clearly say he was NOT sent to baptize. remember who WAS sent to baptize. John the baptist. His baptism was to point to some one. if water baptism now did this then why would Paul say he was NOT sent to do it. It was not a matter of salvation to do or not. he gives it no importance in regards to salvation. he says that it was used for association and bing looked at incorrectly when done. As i explained in my post.

No... the Holy Spirit is not an "it", but the Third Person of the Trinity.

To get that foundational truth wrong says volumes about the rest of your rantings.

As mentioned several times before... Paul's primary mission was to preach the gospel of Christ, and water baptism was generally left to one or more of his co-workers. But Paul did baptize a fair number of new believers.

But if one applies your twist to what Paul said and did, then Paul was not only being dis-obedient to the direct orders from the Lord NOT to baptize, he supported others who followed the same path of disobedience.
NOT SO !!

One more point... although there are some folks who believe that baptism is essential for one's salvation, the Scriptures do not support that position. Just one example, the thief on the cross missed out if it were, but our Lord assured him that on that very day, the thief would be with Christ in Paradise (which before the resurrection was "in Abraham's bosom").

Of course when our Lord rose from the dead, He "...led a multitude of captives..." with Him. i.e. those who responded to His preaching to "...the spirits in prison."

Won't take the space to show that "the spirits in prison" were not in Paradise, (hardly synonymous), but that Christ did preach to them, including "the rich man" who besought Abraham to "send Lazarus".

Just one more... 1 Cor. 12:13 is certainly not speaking of water baptism. It does not take a genius to figure out that the baptism spoken of there was accomplished "...by one Spirit..."... "...into one Body..." and not by Paul.

I certainly adhere to "rightly dividing" (or more literally, "making a straight cut.") But those who try to divide Jew and Gentile are not making a straight cut, but emasculating the Word of God. Serious stuff.

p.s. The reason the word "by" is not used in relation to "...make disciples of all nations..." is because water baptism is not what makes a new believer a disciple. Putting one's faith in the finished work of Calvary's Cross and the resurrection is. Water baptism (by immersion) figures identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, and is to follow one's salvation, not precede it or be a condition upon which salvation is dependent.

Hope this clarifies things... at least a little bit. Shalom.... WAB

 

[heymikey80]

you are twisting it all around. it is stated just the way i wrote. NKJV.

Actually, NKJV is a translation. I'm working from UBS82, the Greek.

A look at a more literal translation would help you confirm this. The verb "baptizing" is a participle if I remember correctly, meaning the disciples are supposed to baptize people. Jesus is not invoking the disciples to become the Spirit of God -- they can't baptize people into the Spirit -- but this verse definitely commands the disciples to make disciples, baptizing them.

So no, the verse doesn't support the idea of the disciples baptizing other disciples in the Spirit. It deals with some other baptism than what the Spirit Himself is commissioned to do. Because the disciples are told to do the baptizing, not the Spirit.

Btw, the Scriptures don't command people to "be saved" because it's not in their hands. God saves people, they can't save themselves. Nevertheless God commands all people everywhere to repent. Ac 17:30

 

[Schroeder]

Actually, NKJV is a translation. I'm working from UBS82, the Greek.

A look at a more literal translation would help you confirm this. The verb "baptizing" is a participle if I remember correctly, meaning the disciples are supposed to baptize people. Jesus is not invoking the disciples to become the Spirit of God -- they can't baptize people into the Spirit -- but this verse definitely commands the disciples to make disciples, baptizing them.

So no, the verse doesn't support the idea of the disciples baptizing other disciples in the Spirit. It deals with some other baptism than what the Spirit Himself is commissioned to do. Because the disciples are told to do the baptizing, not the Spirit.

Btw, the Scriptures don't command people to "be saved" because it's not in their hands. God saves people, they can't save themselves. Nevertheless God commands all people everywhere to repent. Ac 17:30

i did not say it was into the Spirit, i was saying the Father , son and holy spirit, which in a since is the BODY. the Church, it is being in Christ or Christ in you. It makes you a hier to the inheirantance of GOd. it makes you a son of God. Baptize means more then one thing. did not Christ say he had a baptism to be baptized with..., refering to his sacrifice on the cross. And putting it into perspective with the other accounts, water would not seem to be what it is refering to. SO the way it is written it doesnt mean water baptism makes a disciple nor is it written as a ordance of any kind either. And the correst way is to say baptising them INTO not IN. if INTO is used it shows you join something or become part of something. you did not read my post very well. Water baptism was used to signify purification, initiation,OR identification of an individual with a leader group, or teaching. BUT a literale water baptism is not really reguired to fulfill this purification but it could have been used and was to show association. but in
matt that is not what was being spoke of. so it was a figurative meaning of showing what becomeing a disciple did for you. it is the same as what Jesus spoke of when he used the word baptism in Luke. it was not literale and neither is it in matt. 28. I did say it DID NOT command us to do anything but to obey his commands. and he never commanded water baptism in his earthly ministry.

 

[Schroeder]

No... the Holy Spirit is not an "it", but the Third Person of the Trinity.

To get that foundational truth wrong says volumes about the rest of your rantings.

right off you need to reread my post. you misread it terribly. "it" refered to the passage of matt.28:19 SO youassumed the wrong thing which shows why you missed the rest of the post.

As mentioned several times before... Paul's primary mission was to preach the gospel of Christ, and water baptism was generally left to one or more of his co-workers. But Paul did baptize a fair number of new believers.

apparently you missed my other post were i clarified what i meant. he did baptize but he said it was not part of the gospel message. if it was commanded to be done then i would think it would be part of the gospel.

But if one applies your twist to what Paul said and did, then Paul was not only being dis-obedient to the direct orders from the Lord NOT to baptize, he supported others who followed the same path of disobedience.
NOT SO !!

there is no twist i wrote what he wrote. And he was not given ORDERS to baptize but to preach the gospel which he did. water baptism is NOT part of the gospel and he was not told to do or not to do it by Christ. water baptism has NOTHING to do with obediance because it is NOT part of the gospel. it was used to show your asssociation with Christ and his teaching. 1Cor 1 shows this. He does not speak of it showing his death and ressurection or them not having it show this or anything like that, ONLY that they were using it to show association with the WRONG PERSON.

One more point... although there are some folks who believe that baptism is essential for one's salvation, the Scriptures do not support that position. Just one example, the thief on the cross missed out if it were, but our Lord assured him that on that very day, the thief would be with Christ in Paradise (which before the resurrection was "in Abraham's bosom").

i think you would have noticed that i agree with this if you read my post.

Of course when our Lord rose from the dead, He "...led a multitude of captives..." with Him. i.e. those who responded to His preaching to "...the spirits in prison."

Won't take the space to show that "the spirits in prison" were not in Paradise, (hardly synonymous), but that Christ did preach to them, including "the rich man" who besought Abraham to "send Lazarus".

dont know what this has to do with ny post but yes your right.

Just one more... 1 Cor. 12:13 is certainly not speaking of water baptism. It does not take a genius to figure out that the baptism spoken of there was accomplished "...by one Spirit..."... "...into one Body..." and not by Paul.

i should think you would also know i agree with this if you read my post correctly.

I certainly adhere to "rightly dividing" (or more literally, "making a straight cut.") But those who try to divide Jew and Gentile are not making a straight cut, but emasculating the Word of God. Serious stuff.

again what does this have to do with what i wrote. i do not adhere to this at all. as in trying to seperate jew and gentile.

p.s. The reason the word "by" is not used in relation to "...make disciples of all nations..." is because water baptism is not what makes a new believer a disciple. Putting one's faith in the finished work of Calvary's Cross and the resurrection is. Water baptism (by immersion) figures identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, and is to follow one's salvation, not precede it or be a condition upon which salvation is dependent.

no kidding, and no it is or was used to show ASSOCIATION with the teaching of the apostles and Christ work for us. No scripture says it did that. not a big deal if you believe that and it could be that if you want it to be. and no scripture says it MUST follow your salvation either.

Hope this clarifies things... at least a little bit. Shalom.... WAB

you might want to reread my post and the one that follows it.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

Why not introduce water baptism from its roots? It becomes its own explanation.

Water baptism was not introduced by John the Baptist - he was following a very well understood OT ceremony. John came preaching that the Kingdom of (Heaven or God depending on which Gospel you read) is at hand. Every Jew would remember their heritage where they were to be a Kingdom of Preists - When God would set up His kingdom, then Isreal would be a nation of Preists to bless the entire earth. See Ex 19:6. A ritual to be a Preist was to be washed with water Ex 29:4. Since Israel was to be a nation of Preists in the coming Kingdom, John was making the true Israel (the beleivers) Preists. When the Lord Jesus came to John, the same ritual was applied. No wonder that Luke tells us that Jesus was 30 years old Compare Num 4:3 with Luke 3:23. As the Lord Jesus ascended, He comissioned His Apostles to baptize in complete agreement with Moses and all of the OT.

When Paul came on the scene, he also performed water baptism, but he very clearly told us that Christ never told him to baptize anybody. See 1 Cor 1:17. Any baptizing that Paul did, he did without the authority of Christ. This is certainly not so for the 12 Apostles.

In this dispensation, the Preisthood is temporarily set aside. Inaguration into the Preisthood is no longer necessary, although it will one day be resumed. 1 Pet 2:9. When it is resumed, water baptism will resume.

The problem with water baptism today is that it substitutes the proper doctrine with a fabrication made up by man. Scripture does not say that "baptism is an outward expression of an inward experience". The fabrication is "teaching as doctrine the precepts of men" (Mark 7:7)

 

[Dispy]

Why not introduce water baptism from its roots? It becomes its own explanation.

Water baptism was not introduced by John the Baptist - he was following a very well understood OT ceremony. John came preaching that the Kingdom of (Heaven or God depending on which Gospel you read) is at hand. Every Jew would remember their heritage where they were to be a Kingdom of Preists - When God would set up His kingdom, then Isreal would be a nation of Preists to bless the entire earth. See Ex 19:6. A ritual to be a Preist was to be washed with water Ex 29:4. Since Israel was to be a nation of Preists in the coming Kingdom, John was making the true Israel (the beleivers) Preists. When the Lord Jesus came to John, the same ritual was applied. No wonder that Luke tells us that Jesus was 30 years old Compare Num 4:3 with Luke 3:23. As the Lord Jesus ascended, He comissioned His Apostles to baptize in complete agreement with Moses and all of the OT.

When Paul came on the scene, he also performed water baptism, but he very clearly told us that Christ never told him to baptize anybody. See 1 Cor 1:17. Any baptizing that Paul did, he did without the authority of Christ. This is certainly not so for the 12 Apostles.

In this dispensation, the Preisthood is temporarily set aside. Inaguration into the Preisthood is no longer necessary, although it will one day be resumed. 1 Pet 2:9. When it is resumed, water baptism will resume.

The problem with water baptism today is that it substitutes the proper doctrine with a fabrication made up by man. Scripture does not say that "baptism is an outward expression of an inward experience". The fabrication is "teaching as doctrine the precepts of men" (Mark 7:7)

AMEN and AMEN

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

 

[FreeinChrist]

When Paul came on the scene, he also performed water baptism, but he very clearly told us that Christ never told him to baptize anybody. See 1 Cor 1:17. Any baptizing that Paul did, he did without the authority of Christ. This is certainly not so for the 12 Apostles.

I don't agree with your view.

Act 10:45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
Act 10:47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we {did,} can he?"
Act 10:48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Peter ordered that the Gentile believers be baptized - in water.


As for Paul, he did baptize:

1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Cr 1:15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
1Cr 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

And that was just at Corinth.

And the following is in regards to water baptism:
Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

And as a result of his teaching, Lydia was baptised...and whther Paul was exactly the one, or Silas or the other with him (the author of Acts), it still shows beleivers being water baptized under Paul's teaching. And there was:
Act 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them that {very} hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his {household.}
Act 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

I don't agree with your view.

And the following is in regards to water baptism:
Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Romans 6 is describing our idientification with and into Christ. This is what happens as we get saved. There is not a drop of water in the whole passage. Read it very carefully.

As for Paul's prior behavior of baptizing, he is telling us that God did not command him to do so. He is freely admitting that he overstepped his authority.

 

[WAB]

Romans 6 is describing our idientification with and into Christ. This is what happens as we get saved. There is not a drop of water in the whole passage. Read it very carefully.

As for Paul's prior behavior of baptizing, he is telling us that God did not command him to do so. He is freely admitting that he overstepped his authority.

i.e. Paul was operating in the flesh when he baptized numerous individuals, and even whole households.

And guess what operating in the flesh means? Operating contrary to the will of God.

Shalom... WAB

From what has been posted since this, think I had better clarify, that I do not think for a moment that Paul was operating in the flesh when he baptised new believers. Paul was being obedient to what the Holy Spirit was telling him to do.

Also, FreeinChrist is doing a fine job of refuting the mis-information being posted as to why Paul stated that the Lord did not send him to operate in the same vein as John the Baptist. Paul had a totally diffferent mission, but he did baptise by immersion quite a few times. So... either he was operating in obedience to the direction/leading of the Lord (which I certainly believe), or... if your premise were to be accepted, Paul was deliberately dis-obedient to the Lord's leading/blessing.

Also, to quote C.R. Stam as an authority on the Scriptures really is stretching things, but won't go into that.

Question: why are there such vehement arguments against baptising by immersion after coming to faith in Christ as a public testimony to faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?

If an argument was being made that baptism was necessary/essential to be saved, then I would join in the refutation. But at least from our perspective, baptism is not a requirement, but a testimony.

Shalom.... WAB

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

i.e. Paul was operating in the flesh when he baptized numerous individuals, and even whole households.

And guess what operating in the flesh means? Operating contrary to the will of God.

Shalom... WAB

When Paul said that Christ did not send him to baptize, then there is only one possibility. Any baptizing that he did was on his own. Paul could never have correctly said "I baptize you as I was commanded by the Lord"

Peter on the other hand was told to baptize. He most certainly would have been right to say "I baptize you as I was commanded by the Lord".

 

[FreeinChrist]

When Paul said that Christ did not send him to baptize, then there is only one possibility. Any baptizing that he did was on his own. Paul could never have correctly said "I baptize you as I was commanded by the Lord"

Peter on the other hand was told to baptize. He most certainly would have been right to say "I baptize you as I was commanded by the Lord".

When Paul said that Christ did not send him to baptize, he meant that his primary mission was to evangelize....like it was John the Baptists primary role to preach the baptism of repentence. And obviously Paul had someone along to baptize as we see Lydia was baptized, as was the man and his household in ACts 16. Paul didn't say say - "hey, wait - you don't need water baptism!"
No, instead we see that Paul, in fact, did baptise some (Crispus and Gaius, the household of Stephanas) and that others, Gentiles, were water baptized after being led to Christ through Paul.
And no, we don't see Paul apologizing form baptising anyone, or saying he was going against god - that is adding to scripture. LOOK at the CONTEXT. What was the rpoblem Paul is addressing? "I am of Cephas." "I am of Apollos".

So as I see it, Paul never said there was no need to water baptise...and did himself baptizse at times and didn't say stop when people were baptised in his presence.


And I think you abuse Exodus 19:6 in your interpretation. In making that statement about Israel as a kingdom of priests, God is referring to Israel as a called out nation from among nations as the Levites were called out to be priests from amoung the chldren of Israel. Figure of speech.

 

[Dispy]

I am in full agreement with Dennis's posting.

When Paul came on the scene, he also performed water baptism, but he very clearly told us that Christ never told him to baptize anybody. See 1 Cor 1:17. Any baptizing that Paul did, he did without the authority of Christ. This is certainly not so for the 12 Apostles.

I don't agree with your view.

Act 10:45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
Act 10:47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we {did,} can he?"
Act 10:48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Peter ordered that the Gentile believers be baptized - in water.

At Pentecost, the repentant sinner was water baptized for the remission. (John's baptism), the repentant water baptized believer was then baptize by Jesus with the Holy Ghost. If one will go back to Matthew 3:11, we will see that is in fulfillment of what John said there. That is also in line with what Peter said in Acts 2:38. For the one to receive the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the repentant HAD to be water baptized. A repentant that was not water baptized did not recieve the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

In Acts 10 we find that while Peter was telling Cornelius, and his group, about Jesus, the Holy Ghost/Spirit fell on them without any indication of repentance and water baptism. WOW what a change since Pentecost. At Pentecost the message was still to the Jews only, and they had to be repent and be water baptized in order to receive the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

No wonder the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed. It never happend that way before. It appears the the purpose of water baptism had vanished.

Lets take a look at the events that happened prior to Acts 10. In Acts 7, we have the leaders of Israel stoning Stephen who was filled with the Holy Ghost/Spirit. By that act, they had rejected the 3rd person of the Trinity. They had previously rejected God the Father when they refused to be baptized by John and allowed him to be killed. Also they went about trying to establish their own righteousness (Rm.10:3). They then rejected God the Son when they demanded that Jesus be crucified.

With the rejection of the Trinity, there is no way that Israel, as a nation, could become that Holy nation of priests through which all the nations of the earth were to be blessed.

In Acts 9 we have Paul being converted by the pure Grace of God. On his way to Damascus he was saved the moment he recognized that the One who's voice he heard what Jesus, and he called Him "LORD." Also, he received the Holy Ghost/Spirit prior to being water baptized. He was water baptized because water baptism was in effect at that time. (See 1Tim.1:16 where Paul is now the pattern.)

Prior to Acts 10, it was still unlawful for a Jew to go to one of another nation (cf. Acts 10:28). Peter in Acts 10 now learns that the Gentile is no longer to be considered "unclean" and God directs Peter to go to a Gentile. (Prior to that, for one that was a Gentile, and wanted to serve the true and living God that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Laws of Moses.) Now when God showed Peter the the Gentiles were no longer to be considered "unclean" that can only mean that the Jews were now on the same level at the Gentiles were placed at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. NOW there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile. Paul explains the settingd aside of Israel in Romans 11:7-12. Paul also tell us in vs. 32 "For God hath concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all."

From the above, we should be able to see that the water baptism of Acts 2:38 was for the remission of sins AND receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost/Spirit. From Acts 9 and 10, we see that it is now no longer the case. It was still practised at that time because that was part of the salvation economy, prior to Paul's recieving the full knowledge of the mystery "which was kept secret since the world began."

As for Paul, he did baptize:

1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Cr 1:15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
1Cr 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

1Corinthians 1 is the only time that Paul speaks of water baptism. It is apparent that it was a contenteous subject even then, as it is today, and causing divisions in the Church; just as it does today. Today there is no majority view as to HOW, WHEN or WHY one should be water baptized. Is God the author of this confusion, or is it the "doctrine of men" that is causing this confusion?

Never once does Paul command anyone to be water baptized. It was still practised as part of the old economy. When believers started to receive the Holy Ghost/Spirit, prior to water baptism, what is the need for water baptism now? Yes Paul did bapize some in his ministry prior to receiving the full knowledge of the mystery. After he had received the full knowledge of the mystery (Acts 28) one cannot find that that he baptized any one after that time. In the General Epistles of Peter, James and John, one cannot find where they water baptized anyone. (1Peter 3:21 is not speaking of water baptism but the death baptism of Christ.)

The division of water baptism was now causing schism within the Chruch. Paul thanks God that he was not commissioned to water baptize because baptism was now taking away from the Cross of Christ. It isn't Jesus baptizing the repentant water baptized believer with the Holy Ghost/Spirit anymore: now we have the Holy Spirit baptizing the repentant believer into The Body of Christ, that didn't exist until after Paul was saved.

To be continued in Part 2.

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

 

[Dispy]

Part 2

And that was just at Corinth.

And the following is in regards to water baptism:
Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

I will respond to the above from the book BAPTISM AND THE BIBLE by Cornelius R. Stam.

THE ORIGIN OF THE 'BURIAL' THEORY'

Clearly the teaching of baptism as a burial in water has sprung from the gratuitous assumption that the bord "baptismos" always, or most always, refers to water baptism, while in fqact it basically refers to complete identification.

We quote the two passages from whence this miscomceiption has arisen, so that we may consider them in light of the Scriptures as a whole:

"Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Chris was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom..6:4)

"Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:12).

It should be noted that both of these verses state that the believers are "buried with Christ, not like Christ. This in itself should convince us that these passages have nothing do do with water. In Gal. 2:20 we read that we have been "crucified with Christ, and it is clear that this was not accomplished by submission to any religious ceremony. Just as the believer has been crucified with Christ' (Gal. 2:20) by simple faith, so also he has been buried-raised-with Christ, "Through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead" (See Col. 2:12 again) This cannot refer to water baptism, for if we must be physically buried to be "buried with Christ," must we not also be physically crucified to be "crucified with Christ"?

Further, Ver.3 of the Romans passages stated that we were "baptized into Jesus Christ"-again, not like Christ, but into Christ, to become one with Him. This should bring to mind the truth of 1 Cor. 12:13, where we read that "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body." Gal. 3:27 clearly state that this is the thought were our baptism into Christ is concerned.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

And as a result of his teaching, Lydia was baptised...and whther Paul was exactly the one, or Silas or the other with him (the author of Acts), it still shows beleivers being water baptized under Paul's teaching. And there was:
Act 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them that {very} hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his {household.}
Act 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Yes, Paul did baptize some, and he thanks God that it wasn't many, as God did not commission him to baptize. Could Peter have preached in Acts 2 what Paul says in 1Cor.1:17?

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

 

[heymikey80]

i did not say it was into the Spirit, i was saying the Father , son and holy spirit, which in a since is the BODY. the Church, it is being in Christ or Christ in you. It makes you a hier to the inheirantance of GOd. it makes you a son of God. Baptize means more then one thing.

Yes, (and actually it's into the name of Father, Son, Spirit -- a signature on the covenant) as the word "cover" means something metaphorically as well as concretely, so does "baptize" in Greek. But you wouldn't deny what the word means in its most apparent context. If it applies concretely with no qualification in the context, it's highly likely it's meant concretely.

did not Christ say he had a baptism to be baptized with..., refering to his sacrifice on the cross.

He sure did.

And putting it into perspective with the other accounts, water would not seem to be what it is refering to.

Debatable. Bodies anointed for burial and packed in aromatics can be "baptized" in them.

SO the way it is written it doesnt mean water baptism makes a disciple ...

And nobody said any different.

... nor is it written as a ordance of any kind either.

Don't you think that's a nieve approach to a clear command, with no qualification?

And the correst way is to say baptising them INTO not IN.

Again: You can't baptize people into God's Father, Son, or Spirit. Again: the Spirit, one you have been instructed to baptize into, is totally free of your power. "The Spirit moves where He wills ... everyone who follows Him is born of the Spirit", not vice versa.

The actor here is God when it occasions God's action. Yet "baptizing" here points directly at an action of the disciples, to new disciples. Baptism in any other way is out of our hands.

And the correst way is to say baptising them INTO not IN. if INTO is used it shows you join something or become part of something. you did not read my post very well.

Well, not true. The Greek words for "into" and "in" are used in Greek to mean pretty much the same thing when used to mean what the English word means by, "in". In fact they're so similar that Greek slowly dropped its use of the word for "in" as it developed further.

Water baptism was used to signify purification, initiation, OR identification of an individual with a leader group, or teaching. BUT a literale water baptism is not really reguired to fulfill this purification but it could have been used and was to show association.

Yes. Same conclusions, but qualifications.

but in matt that is not what was being spoke of. so it was a figurative meaning of showing what becomeing a disciple did for you. it is the same as what Jesus spoke of when he used the word baptism in Luke. it was not literale and neither is it in matt. 28. I did say it DID NOT command us to do anything but to obey his commands. and he never commanded water baptism in his earthly ministry.

I'm sorry, it isn't. The word "baptizing" is used in an active sense, not a passive sense. The receivers of Christ's commission are doing the "baptizing" here. The word isn't "being baptized", the word is "baptizing".