Water Baptism

[FreeinChrist]

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.

Act 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

I suspect that Cornelius was repentent...which was in his prayer. We are not told what he prayed for... but as Cornelius had been fasting (why do people do that?), and is described as a "God-fearing" man...bet he was penitent.

And in regards to baptism....yeah, it was water. The Holy Spirit had already come upon cornelius (and all who had listened) and then Peter ordered them to be baptized, after saying:
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?"


Yeah - it was water baptism. Of Gentiles.

AND in regards to repentance...Paul still taught that!:

Act 20:18 And when they had come to him, he said to them, "You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time,
Act 20:19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews;
Act 20:20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house,
Act 20:21 solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

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.

Obviously it was still to be done!!

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.)

AND he baptized others as previously stated!

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."

You failed to make your case, as it is obvious that Peter was talking about water baptism when he exclaimed:
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?"

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?

Water baptism isn't a 'doctrine of man". Jesus was water baptized....Paul was water baptized....Paul baptized others, and had others baptized as a result of his teaching. The changes that were made later on do not change the teaching of the baptism in the Bible.

Your truly failed to make your case.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Part 2


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."



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!

No, he thanked God because of the division he saw - created by men - and was happy they were not putting himself as equal or over Christ. He didn't dis water baptism or say it shouldn't be done.

And I will respond to the above with Jameson, Fawsett and Brown:
14. I thank God's providence now, who so ordered it that I baptized none of you but Crispus (the former ruler of the synagogue, Act 18:8 ) and Gaius (written by the Romans Caius, the host of Paul at Corinth, and of the church, Rom 16:23 ; a person therefore in good circumstances). Baptizing was the office of the deacons ( Act 10:48 ) rather than of the apostles, whose office was that of establishing and superintending generally the churches. The deacons had a better opportunity of giving the necessary course of instruction preparatory to baptism. Crispus and Gaius were probably among the first converts, and hence were baptized by Paul himself, who founded the church.
And in regards to verse 17:
17. Paul says this not to depreciate baptism; for he exalts it most highly ( Rom 6:3 ). He baptized some first converts; and would have baptized more, but that his and the apostles' peculiar work was to preach the Gospel, to found by their autoptic testimony particular churches, and then to superintend the churches in general.
sent me--literally, "as an apostle."
not to baptize--even in Christ's name, much less in my own.
not with wisdom of words--or speech; philosophical reasoning set off with oratorical language and secular learning, which the Corinthians set so undue a value upon ( 1Cr 1:5 2:1, 4 ) in Apollos, and the want of which in Paul they were dissatisfied with ( 2Cr 10:10 ).
cross of Christ--the sum and substance of the Gospel ( 1Cr 1:23 2:2 ), Christ crucified.
be made of none effect--literally, "be made void" ( Rom 4:14 ); namely, by men thinking more of the human reasonings and eloquence in which the Gospel was set forth, than of the Gospel itself of Christ crucified, the sinner's only remedy, and God's highest exhibition of love.

 

[Dispy]

FreeinChrist:
I find what Jameson, Fawsett and Brown have written is primarily speculation. Yes, there is some fact in it, but it is still their speculation.

Your post refuted nothing I posted.

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

 

[FreeinChrist]

FreeinChrist:
I find what Jameson, Fawsett and Brown have written is primarily speculation. Yes, there is some fact in it, but it is still their speculation.

Your post refuted nothing I posted.

J, F & B are as much speculation as Stam.

And yeah, I did refute alot of what you wrote.

 

[WAB]

J, F & B are as much speculation as Stam.

And yeah, I did refute alot of what you wrote.

Yeah... and well done too!

Said as much in an edit of a reply post...(#55)... thought it would forward to this area...shows you how great a techie I am...

 

[Dispy]

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.

Act 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

Wait a minute. Wasn't Peter at Pentacost preaching repent and be water baptize for the remissions of sins?
In verse 43 it says that "who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." What happened to repent and be baptized? Peter is telling Cornelius what God had just shown him earlier in that chapter.

You have refuted nothing of what I had posted.

I suspect that Cornelius was repentent...which was in his prayer. We are not told what he prayed for... but as Cornelius had been fasting (why do people do that?), and is described as a "God-fearing" man...bet he was penitent.

And in regards to baptism....yeah, it was water. The Holy Spirit had already come upon cornelius (and all who had listened) and then Peter ordered them to be baptized, after saying:
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?"


Yeah - it was water baptism. Of Gentiles.

AND in regards to repentance...Paul still taught that!:

Act 20:18 And when they had come to him, he said to them, "You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time,
Act 20:19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews;
Act 20:20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house,
Act 20:21 solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Cornelius was searching for the true and living God of Israel. God has never turned anyone away that sought after Him. That is why God sent Peter to Cornelius. His prayers and fasting were evidence of the sincerity of his search.

At the time of the vision to Peter, water baptism was still part of the economy that Peter was under. Before Peter commanded them to be baptized, he asked "can any man forbit water that they should not be baptized?" Being water baptism was still part of the economy at that time, Peter baptized them. Peter didn't have any of the future revelations that were given to Paul. And yes, Cornelius and his group were water baptized. I never said that they weren't.

Yes, Paul did preach repentance; which simply means to turn yourself around/do an about face/express sorrow for past misdeed. Paul NEVER once preached water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. He preached FAITH in the Cross work (death, burial, and resurrection) of Christ for salvation/justification.

What did you refute so far?

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.

Obviously it was still to be done!!

It was done because it was part of the economy (house laws) at that time.

You refuted nothing there.

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.)

AND he baptized others as previously stated!

I have never denied that. He baptized others because it was still part of the old econimy (house laws). However, after Paul received the full knowledge of the mystery, one can never find that he ever baptized again. Even in the General Epistles of Peter, James and John, one cannot find where they either water baptized anyone or required anyone to be water water baptized.

Don't think you refuted anything there either.

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."

You failed to make your case, as it is obvious that Peter was talking about water baptism when he exclaimed:
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?"

Did I deny that Peter was not talking about water baptism? I don't think so. What case didn't I make? I said all along that Cornelius and his group received the Holy Ghost without evidence of any repentance and water baptism.

What did you refute here?

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?

Water baptism isn't a 'doctrine of man". Jesus was water baptized....Paul was water baptized....Paul baptized others, and had others baptized as a result of his teaching. The changes that were made later on do not change the teaching of the baptism in the Bible.

Your truly failed to make your case.

I never said that water baptism was "the doctrine of men." It is "the doctrine of men" that is causing the confusion in the churches today as to HOW WHEN or WHY one shoud be water baptized.

It is how the Holy Spirit that baptizes the believer into The Body of Christ. It is a dry-cleaning. That happens the moment one puts their FAITH and trust in the Cross work of Christ for their salvation.

Well, as far as I can see, you have refuted nothing. If you did, PLEASE point it out to me.

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

 

[FreeinChrist]

Dispy, you are working from many false premise....#1 being that full revelation was not til Acts 28. You did write:

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?

If there was no need, then why did Paul baptize some and have other baptized in his presence? Is it because it was an ordinance of Jesus Himself? I think so. And no, it was just practicing something from an old economy. That isn't from scripture - that is your own interpretation.

Jesus did say:
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

You really think that Jesus, in saying "all nations, baptizing them" was only thinking of the Jews?
Since the baptizing of the Holy Ghost was by Him....what baptism of "all nations" was to be done by His followers?

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.

I fail to see that Paul had "full diclosure in Acts 28...and as not seeing baptism afte that time, could it be because:
Act 28:16 When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him.

You think "full diclosure" is here?:
Act 28:28 "Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen."

He is saying that to Jews in Rome....since Paul is also quoting the OT just before saying that, disclosure was made in the OT!

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.)

It isn't specifically mentioned...it is not said it isn't to be done either. It was a continued practice. Why?

Now to be clear, I don't beleive water baptism is necessary for salvation....but it is a command of Jesus Christ which I take seriously...and to teach it is not to be done is going against Him.

 

[Schroeder]

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.

i would think the use of a comma instead of BYw ould show it was not meant to be concretly used as a action of water baptiZing some one for something. Again show me were Christ taught water baptism in his earthly ministry. why would he bring it up all of a sudden.

He sure did.

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

And nobody said any different.

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

it is true baptism most useily is to show a COMPLETE coverage. as in the SPirit. as in becoming PART of Christ and his work. as what Gal 3:27 says. is this passage water baptism as well. It cant be bacause of what 1 Cor 12:13 says, so it is the same usage as matt. 28. The clear command was to go teach the gospel, we know Paul said water baptism is not part of the gospel. why would he say this to Paul but tell the others it was. read Acts 10:42. doesnt say anything about water baptism as a command.

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.

read gal 3:27 it says we are baptized INTO christ. how is that done. not water. YOu keep using the word baptizing as a literale act of dipping into water. when i keep saying it is not that at all. And it isnt speaking of what disciple do it is saying what happens when they ARE a disciple. THAT is why there is a COMMA instead of the word BY.

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.

it is a ACTION. when you become a disciple YOU WILL BE JOINED INTO CHRIST. is not the word JOINING a action. and you would be wrong in what you say because if it meant it that way it would be how you became a disciple because it says go MAKE disciples. SO if it was a literale water baptism meaning it would imply that is how you became one.

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.

PRETTy much. but not always trying to use prober grammer with what it was in greek then is preety tough because they had slang usage as well. and it gets mixed up in translation.

Yes. Same conclusions, but qualifications.

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".

becoming a part of Christ body is active sense as well, joining into Christ SPirit is active sense as well. and i would not say it means being baptized. i would think your interpretation would say being baptized. if it means "joining" or "becoming part of" it would be baptizing into.

 

[Schroeder]

Dispy, you are working from many false premise....#1 being that full revelation was not til Acts 28. You did write:

If there was no need, then why did Paul baptize some and have other baptized in his presence? Is it because it was an ordinance of Jesus Himself? I think so. And no, it was just practicing something from an old economy. That isn't from scripture - that is your own interpretation.

Jesus did say:
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

it says "INTO" read gal. 3:27 it says baptized INTO christ. is not matt 28 saying the same thing. But i believe the word baptism is used here as meaning a association or joining into GOds family. becomeing a disciple makes you a heir to God. that is why a COMMA is used instead of the word BY.

You really think that Jesus, in saying "all nations, baptizing them" was only thinking of the Jews?
Since the baptizing of the Holy Ghost was by Him....what baptism of "all nations" was to be done by His followers?

no he wasnt. i agree. it is not a literale water baptism. read luke when jesus uses the word baptize to associate it with his sacrifice.

I fail to see that Paul had "full diclosure in Acts 28...and as not seeing baptism afte that time, could it be because:
Act 28:16 When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him.

You think "full diclosure" is here?:
Act 28:28 "Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen."

He is saying that to Jews in Rome....since Paul is also quoting the OT just before saying that, disclosure was made in the OT!

It isn't specifically mentioned...it is not said it isn't to be done either. It was a continued practice. Why?

Now to be clear, I don't beleive water baptism is necessary for salvation....but it is a command of Jesus Christ which I take seriously...and to teach it is not to be done is going against Him.

to show a association with a group or message or belief. it was a common act to show this in this way. it is or was never a command of Christ to do. read Acts 10:42 he said Christ command them to PREACH or teach he doesnt mention water baptism hear. the other accounts in the gospels also do not mention water baptism. Mark say water but it is clear this is the Spirit. because we know as you say it is not needed to be saved. And if you make Matt. 28 be a command to water baptize then this one is a clear command to do it to be saved. And either the church of christ folks are correct or the dispinsationalist are right.

 

[FreeinChrist]

i would think the use of a comma instead of BYw ould show it was not meant to be concretly used as a action of water baptiZing some one for something. Again show me were Christ taught water baptism in his earthly ministry. why would he bring it up all of a sudden.

Why did He command it in His final instructions...and why did Peter preach it? Perhaops you are missing the significance of the baptism of Jesus.

it is true baptism most useily is to show a COMPLETE coverage. as in the SPirit. as in becoming PART of Christ and his work. as what Gal 3:27 says. is this passage water baptism as well. It cant be bacause of what 1 Cor 12:13 says, so it is the same usage as matt. 28. The clear command was to go teach the gospel, we know Paul said water baptism is not part of the gospel. why would he say this to Paul but tell the others it was. read Acts 10:42. doesnt say anything about water baptism as a command.

But he is referring to water baptism!

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.

 

[FreeinChrist]

it says "INTO" read gal. 3:27 it says baptized INTO christ. is not matt 28 saying the same thing. But i believe the word baptism is used here as meaning a association or joining into GOds family. becomeing a disciple makes you a heir to God. that is why a COMMA is used instead of the word BY.

Your incomplete sentences and lack of punctuation make it hard to understand your posts.... is this "is not matt 28 saying the same thing." supposed to be a question?


Matthew 28 - the Greek word for 'baptizing' is baptizo:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/9/1143324254-167.html

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to overwhelm
++++
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.


Since the apostles went on to water baptize....and I suspect they had first hand knowledge of what jesus meant....I go with water baptism.

Yes, in Galatians 3:27, we see baptism referred as a means of identifying with Christ, but it soesn't rule out water baptism as an outward witness of that identification. Paul describes it well here:
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
Rom 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
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.
Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection,

no he wasnt. i agree. it is not a literale water baptism. read luke when jesus uses the word baptize to associate it with his sacrifice.

Yeah - it was a literal water baptism. That's his followers can do...it is God who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

 

[heymikey80]

i would think the use of a comma instead of BYw ould show it was not meant to be concretly used as a action of water baptiZing some one for something.

I don't get why this would matter. "baptizontes" has the implication of the English word "by" in its part of speech. The comma doesn't exist in the Greek original.

Again show me were Christ taught water baptism in his earthly ministry. why would he bring it up all of a sudden.

Oh. I didn't realize it would be that easy.

The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples). John 4:1-2
​

Of course the disciples were never commanded not to baptize, and so they baptized after Jesus' Resurrection too (e.g. Acts 2:36ff).

it is true baptism most useily is to show a COMPLETE coverage. as in the SPirit. as in becoming PART of Christ and his work. as what Gal 3:27 says. is this passage water baptism as well.

Well, it is. Y'put on the clothes of Christ by baptism. You may be judged to be in the wrong clothes, certainly, by being baptized improperly.

Water baptism is a signature of God's intent. So it's the Spirit properly involved in baptism that validates water baptism. It is not the water, or the church location, or the person baptizing who accomplishes baptism properly. God does the signing. We're there as witnesses and representatives only.

It cant be bacause of what 1 Cor 12:13 says,

Again, you mistake the two for being exclusive. Proper water baptism is by the Spirit.

so it is the same usage as matt. 28.

Which leads to the incorrect conclusion here. That's made obvious by the fact that the disciples are commanded to make disciples while baptizing and teaching. The disciples perform the baptism. When you can command the Spirit of God to baptize someone into Christ, then I'll admit you've properly interpreted Matt 28:18-21. Would you like a short list of people I'd like you to baptize Spiritually? I can send a list.

The clear command was to go teach the gospel, we know Paul said water baptism is not part of the gospel.

Nuh-uh. Paul said He was not sent to baptize but to preach (and that, the Gospel). The most you can say is that baptism isn't preaching. Baptism is part of the Gospel.

why would he say this to Paul but tell the others it was. read Acts 10:42. doesnt say anything about water baptism as a command.

So every time you talk about the Gospel you say something about your commission to make disciples? I bet I can trip you up on that in this forum, alone! The reality is that "Can we deprive water" shows a bell-clanging connection between the Spirit at work and water baptism. Listen, the bells are clanging. Peter knew it was "past-due" for the Gentiles to be baptized, if they already showed the Spirit's work in them. I think we should heed Peter's direction to baptize people in water when it's past due.

read gal 3:27 it says we are baptized INTO christ. how is that done. not water.

Yes. In water, typically.

YOu keep using the word baptizing as a literale act of dipping into water. when i keep saying it is not that at all. And it isnt speaking of what disciple do it is saying what happens when they ARE a disciple. THAT is why there is a COMMA instead of the word BY. it is a ACTION. when you become a disciple YOU WILL BE JOINED INTO CHRIST. is not the word JOINING a action.

Nope, not supported by the text. If that were true the Greek would read, "BEING BAPTIZED", not "BAPTIZING".

and you would be wrong in what you say because if it meant it that way it would be how you became a disciple because it says go MAKE disciples. SO if it was a literale water baptism meaning it would imply that is how you became one.

Absolutely. Water baptism is among the typical, external actions one disciple performs on a new disciple. It's commanded.

PRETTy much. but not always trying to use prober grammer with what it was in greek then is preety tough because they had slang usage as well. and it gets mixed up in translation.

=chuckle= I'm not in the habit of calling anything Scripture-slang when it says something I don't want it to. You asked if Scripture said such a thing. It does. It's possible you'll deny it, but it says such a thing. Mt 28:18-21

becoming a part of Christ body is active sense as well, joining into Christ SPirit is active sense as well. and i would not say it means being baptized. i would think your interpretation would say being baptized. if it means "joining" or "becoming part of" it would be baptizing into.

No. Baptism is always something one (subject) does to another (object). You don't baptize the Spirit. The verb just doesn't work that way. It doesn't Schroeder. When you are sent an email, does that mean you send anything? No. That's just an argument denying the actual meaning of what the Apostle wrote, Schroeder.

 

[GLJCA]

From the book Common Questions About the Grace Message by Joel Finck.

QUESTION 9) WHY DO WE NOT WATER BAPTIZE?

Nowhere in Paul’s epistles do you ever find instructions for us to be water baptized. Many recognize that Paul was given revelation from the Lord and that in fact, he writes directly to the churches and the church leaders, Timothy and Titus and to the saints of the Body of Christ. Yet, does it not strike you as a little strange that if we are supposed to be water baptizing that Paul never tells us to do it. He never tells us how it is supposed to be done, how it should be carried out, who should be doing it, etc.

Why is this? True Christianity is a faith which involves an inward reality, not outward ritual. And yet even as we write this, the vast majority of Christendom, has reverted back to the rituals of the Law and the Jewish Kingdom program.

Israel was a sign nation. God revealed to the Jewish people many outward shows of their faith. These involved sacrifices, water rituals and ceremonial washings, certain meats and drinks, observance of days, etc. All of these being designed to teach certain truths to the nation Israel. As one examines God’s spiritual program for this dispensation, however, as it is revealed to the Apostle of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul, it soon becomes evident that these outward, visible manifestations of Israel’s religion, do not belong to the Church the Body of Christ. Indeed, they have no place in the practice of our faith in this dispensation. Amazingly, many churches would agree. They would say, of course, we do not observe those Jewish rituals. We have instead our own Christian rituals that we do! Many fail to realize that the so-called Christian ordinances and rituals actually can be traced back to the Jewish program for the nation Israel.

Isn't it interesting that these people will throw out Baptism and yet keep the Lord's Supper?

They throw out Baptism, which is the physical sign of New Covenant membership, yet they keep the Lord's Supper which is the remembrance of the institution of the New Covenant in Christ's blood. They say they are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant, yet they don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect today. They believe that the blood is effective for their salvation but the New Covenant, which is in Christ's blood isn't. Yet it was the promise given to Israel in Jeremiah that gives us that salvation.

God's promise to Israel was the He would be their God and they would be His people, which is the promise of salvation to us all.

God's promise of forgiveness of sins and that He would remember them no more was given to Israel yet this group is saying that God has forgiven their sins based on the blood of Jesus Christ, and yet they deny that the New Covenant is in effect today. God's forgiveness to us is based on His promise to Israel in Jer 31:34, yet this group says that verse is for the New Covenant, which is not in effect today.

This is one mixed up group of people, but then the Bible tells us about these people.

2*** 3:7-9 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all [men], as theirs also was.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Even though they are shown their error they ignore the truth because it doesn't match their belief. Believing their system of belief is more important to them than adhering to the Word of God. Believing in two gospels when the Word of God shows them there is but one is folly. Even though you show them that Paul preached the same gospel as Peter did they will not see it because they can't. God has to open their eyes or else they will perish. They are teaching a new gospel which Paul says the person who does so would "be anathema" (cursed of God). They are cursing themselves without understanding what they are doing because they are listening to wolves in sheeps clothing.

I pray that God give you repentance.
GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

Because of our identification with Christ, we now have the spiritual equipment by the Holy Spirit to live the Christian life. This is what spiritual baptism is all about.

Why would we trade all this for a water ceremony?

You know what is amusing?

1> It is that you guys will throw out water baptism saying that it is not needed because all we need is spiritual baptism when God says that you need both. He showed that the physical sign of the covenant was required in the Old Testament at the same time He required the spiritual sign of the circumcision of the heart. In the New Covenant God requires the physical sign of the covenant, baptism, and at the same time requires the spiritual baptism also. You can not have one without the other. In the Old Testament a person could not become one of God's people unless they were circumcised. In the New Testament a person can not become one of God's children without water baptism because it is the circumcision of Jesus Christ which is the sign of New Covenant membership.
Col 2:11-13 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

2> The other amusing thing is that you don't throw out the Lord's Supper, which is the remembrance of Christ's institution of the New Covenant, which you say is not in effect today. You say that the blood of Christ is effective for your salvation but you can't see that your salvation is based on God's promise of the New Covenant. God's promise to Israel that their sins would be forgiven and that He would remember their sins no more is a promise of the New Covenant in Jer 31:34 and you are appropriating that promise when you say that God has forgiven your sins because of the blood of Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant, while at the same time you are saying that the New Covenant isn't for you.

If the New Covenant is not in effect then your sins are not forgiven. You have no basis to say that your sins are forgiven apart from the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant.

You guys are a mixed up group of people.

You say that there are two gospels even though it has been vividly shown to you that Paul preached the same gospel throughout Acts that Peter did.

Paul and Peter divided ministries in Acts 15 but it wasn't until the 18th chapter that Paul went only to the Gentiles. Then here Paul shows what he taught to the Jews and Gentiles alike; Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Paul gave the Gentiles the same message that he gave to the Jews in Damascus and Jerusalem and throughout all the coasts of Judaea. It was the same message that Peter told the Jews in Acts 2 and the same message that Stephan gave the Jews in Acts 8.

Sadly I realize that this fact will not sway you because what you believe is more important that the truth from God's Word but you will not be able to plead ignorance because the truth is before you. What you are teaching is dangerous because it is another gospel which seeks to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.

GLJCA

 

[Dispy]

From the book Common Questions About the Grace Message by Joel Finck.

QUESTION 9) WHY DO WE NOT WATER BAPTIZE?

Nowhere in Paul’s epistles do you ever find instructions for us to be water baptized. Many recognize that Paul was given revelation from the Lord and that in fact, he writes directly to the churches and the church leaders, Timothy and Titus and to the saints of the Body of Christ. Yet, does it not strike you as a little strange that if we are supposed to be water baptizing that Paul never tells us to do it. He never tells us how it is supposed to be done, how it should be carried out, who should be doing it, etc.

Why is this? True Christianity is a faith which involves an inward reality, not outward ritual. And yet even as we write this, the vast majority of Christendom, has reverted back to the rituals of the Law and the Jewish Kingdom program.

Israel was a sign nation. God revealed to the Jewish people many outward shows of their faith. These involved sacrifices, water rituals and ceremonial washings, certain meats and drinks, observance of days, etc. All of these being designed to teach certain truths to the nation Israel. As one examines God’s spiritual program for this dispensation, however, as it is revealed to the Apostle of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul, it soon becomes evident that these outward, visible manifestations of Israel’s religion, do not belong to the Church the Body of Christ. Indeed, they have no place in the practice of our faith in this dispensation. Amazingly, many churches would agree. They would say, of course, we do not observe those Jewish rituals. We have instead our own Christian rituals that we do! Many fail to realize that the so-called Christian ordinances and rituals actually can be traced back to the Jewish program for the nation Israel.

Isn't it interesting that these people will throw out Baptism and yet keep the Lord's Supper?

They throw out Baptism, which is the physical sign of New Covenant membership, yet they keep the Lord's Supper which is the remembrance of the institution of the New Covenant in Christ's blood. They say they are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant, yet they don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect today. They believe that the blood is effective for their salvation but the New Covenant, which is in Christ's blood isn't. Yet it was the promise given to Israel in Jeremiah that gives us that salvation.

I find no Scrliptural support that says that Baptism is the physical sign of the New Covenant. John the Baptist preached water baptism for the remission of sins. Peter continued that message at Pentecost in Acts 2:38. At Pentecost, after the repentant was water baptized, Jesus baptize that repentant water baptized one with the Holy Ghost in fulfillment of what John said in Matthew 3:11.

God's promise to Israel was the He would be their God and they would be His people, which is the promise of salvation to us all.

I am not a Jew or spiritual Jew. I am a member of The Body of Christ where there is no distinction between the Jew and Gentile. So, How can one say that they will receive that promise given to Israel apply to those of another nation? BTW, Isn't Israel, as a nation, presently in a set aside condition? Aren't their eyes darkened "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (see Rm.11:7-25)? When does the fulness of the Gentiles come in?

If the Gentiles were grafted into Israel, and Israel is presently in a set aside condition (as a nation, Israel still doesn't recognize Jesus as their Messiah), what benefit would I receive by becoming a spiritual Jew. Their OT promises are still for future fulfillment. They won't be fulfilled until after the Church, The Body of Christ, is raptured to heaven, "...to ever be with the Lord" (1Thess.4:17).

God's promise of forgiveness of sins and that He would remember them no more was given to Israel yet this group is saying that God has forgiven their sins based on the blood of Jesus Christ, and yet they deny that the New Covenant is in effect today. God's forgiveness to us is based on His promise to Israel in Jer 31:34, yet this group says that verse is for the New Covenant, which is not in effect today.

The prophesy in Jer. 31:31-34 is to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 15:24 "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israd." Paul tells us that Jesus came "...to confirm the promises made to the fathers" (Rm. 15:8).

Matthew 26:27-29 "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it: For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of tyhe vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers's kingdom."

At the time Jesus spoke these words, the Gentiles were still in a set aside condition and have been since the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Jesus is only speaking to Jews and speaking of the promise back in Jeremiah 31:31-34. These verses are referenced also in Hebrews 8:7-13. Also, at the time that Jesus spoke these words, Israel was not yet in a set aside condition, as the Gentiles were.

Tell me, How can this covenant with Isreal be in effect today when Israel, as a nation, is set aside. Even the disciples of Jesus recognized that their commission could not be carried at when they, at the council at Jerusalem, agreed with Paul, in Galatians 2:9, that he should go to the uncircumcision (heathen/Gentiles) and that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews). They now realized that God is no longer dealing with Israel as His favorite people, and their "so called" great commission to all the world could not be carried out.

Paul was not raised up to preach "the gospel of the kingdom" as the 12 were, Paul was given a greater commission. That can be found in Ephesians 3:9 "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hadth been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:" and 2Cor.5:18 "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."

Paul closes out the letter to the Romans by saying in verse 25 "Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began."

When Israel, as a nation rejected God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit, God set the nation of Israel aside, interrupted the prophetic program to Israel, then raised up Saul/Paul to usher in this dispensation of Grace. During this dispensation of grace, the Jew and the Gentile are both in the same "set aside boat." That is how they got to be on equal footing and without distinction. From these two set aside peoples God had made (created) the ONE NEW MAN of Ephesians 2:15 who would place their FAITH in the Cross work (death, burial and resurrection) of Christ. This NEW CREATION is now known as The Body of Christ, the Church for today.

From Moses to the raising up up Saul/Paul, sins were only covered for past sins through the shedding of blood of animals. They were not taken away, and the sacrifices were continual. However, we learn from Paul that Jesus was the "once for all" sacrifice for sins, and His sacrifice took away the sins of the past also (Rm 3:25).

The New Covenant that God made with Israel will be in effect after the Chruch, The Body of Christ, is raptured to Israel. With the rapture of the Church, The Body of Christ, God will again deal with Israel as His favorite people. Israel, along with the rest of the world, will go through the Tribulation, and at the end of the Tribulation, Israel as a nation, will recognize "the one whom they had pierced," at His 2nd coming. Then Jesus will drink anew the cup of the new testament.

This is one mixed up group of people, but then the Bible tells us about these people.

2*** 3:7-9 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all [men], as theirs also was.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I don't thing we are as mixed up as you are. IMHO, you are believing a "scrambled egg doctrine." You are trying to make members of The Body of Christ spiritual Jews. Members of The Body of Christ are neither Jews or spiritual Jews. By that you are trying to steal all the promises to the nation of Israel. They are promised an earthly kingdom, while member of The Body of Christ, the Chruch for today, is promised a heavenly home. It really appears to me that you believe that the doctrine of Law and the doctrine of Grace, are one gospel, and have you feet planted in both doctrines. Well, if you study both doctrines, you will discover that they are opposing doctrines. The doctrine of the Law says: Do or pay the penalty. The doctrine of Grace is: Unmeritted favor. Looks to me like you are trying to ride two horses at the same time that are going in opposite directions.

Even though they are shown their error they ignore the truth because it doesn't match their belief. Believing their system of belief is more important to them than adhering to the Word of God. Believing in two gospels when the Word of God shows them there is but one is folly. Even though you show them that Paul preached the same gospel as Peter did they will not see it because they can't. God has to open their eyes or else they will perish. They are teaching a new gospel which Paul says the person who does so would "be anathema" (cursed of God). They are cursing themselves without understanding what they are doing because they are listening to wolves in sheeps clothing.

I pray that God give you repentance.
GLJCA

You claim of "having shown their error they ignore the truth because it doesn't match their belief" is totally unfounded. You tell us we are in error, then don't prove it from Scripture.

You claim that Peter and Paul preached the same message. If that is true, SHOW ME FROM SCRIPTURE.
1. That "the gospel of the kingdom" that Peter was commanded to preach, is the same as "the gospel of the grace of God" that Paul preached.
2. That "the gospel of the circumcision" is the same as "the gospel of the uncircumcision".
3. That Peter, before the raising up of Paul, preached "the purpose of the Cross."
4. That the Chruch, The Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law, existed at Pentecost.
5 That Paul ever preached that members of The Body of Christ would inherit an earthly kingdom.
6. That Jesus, or the 12 ever preached the rapture of The Body of Christ.
7. That Jesus and the 12 preached: "...the mystery "which was kept secret since the world began."

I could come up with others but won't burden you with them now. Really looking forward to your answer of those 7 above.

Have already explained why we don't practise the Jewish rite of water baptism. We participate in the Lord's Supper in accordance with 1Cor.11:26. There is nothing in that verse, or chapter, that it is a celebration of "the new covenant."

Looking forward to your response.

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

 

[Schroeder]

I don't get why this would matter. "baptizontes" has the implication of the English word "by" in its part of speech. The comma doesn't exist in the Greek original.

well why have i not found any versions wrote like that. with out the comma. what does a comma infer.

Oh. I didn't realize it would be that easy.

The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples). John 4:1-2

​

Of course the disciples were never commanded not to baptize, and so they baptized after Jesus' Resurrection too (e.g. Acts 2:36ff).

so JESUS DID NOT water baptize. they were never command to water baptize either. it was a comman occurance and used for a lot of things. one being ASSOCIATION with a group. which is what it was being used for here. Or was it the same as Johns. for forgiveness. when did Jesus explain to them it later would mean differently. how did they know it was meant for what you say it is when he JUST rose from the dead. and if it is a command why did they NEVER do it like they were commanded to. in the name of the father son and holy ghost. i t hibnk it was because they understood it was INTO and they can not join others INTOI the Body of Christ. only the Spirit can.

Well, it is. Y'put on the clothes of Christ by baptism. You may be judged to be in the wrong clothes, certainly, by being baptized improperly.

NO YOU DONT. that is SO unscripturale its sad you believe that. doesnt even make since if you thought about it.

Water baptism is a signature of God's intent. So it's the Spirit properly involved in baptism that validates water baptism. It is not the water, or the church location, or the person baptizing who accomplishes baptism properly. God does the signing. We're there as witnesses and representatives only.

not scripturale. you notice you dont have any scripture to make your points. because there not there. the Spirit doesnt need water. God is bigger then that. its not the water yet God cant work without it. kind of contradictive. and if he isnt willing without it how does that speak of GRACE.

Again, you mistake the two for being exclusive. Proper water baptism is by the Spirit.

Which leads to the incorrect conclusion here. That's made obvious by the fact that the disciples are commanded to make disciples while baptizing and teaching. The disciples perform the baptism. When you can command the Spirit of God to baptize someone into Christ, then I'll admit you've properly interpreted Matt 28:18-21. Would you like a short list of people I'd like you to baptize Spiritually? I can send a list.

well does ONE mean TWO or does it mean what it says ONE as in 1. 1 cor 12:13 shows the ONE. so now you say water baptism is done by the SPirit. NO scripture for that one. you may "help" make disciples by teaching but getting water baptized doesnt "make" you one. only God can truelly make you one. and it is through the Spirit.

Nuh-uh. Paul said He was not sent to baptize but to preach (and that, the Gospel). The most you can say is that baptism isn't preaching. Baptism is part of the Gospel.

nice try. you say read it grammerly right but refuse to here. he said sent not to baptize BUT to preach the gospel. the gospel is about how we are to be SAVED. and you yourself say it is NOT part of salvation. at least sort of. since if you say it is a command and the SPirit is involved, it must be needed to be saved. you are contradictive in your thinking. So the best you could say is that he was not sent to do water baptism but give it to others. but as you say he did water baptize, so the point is something else. that it has not a thing to do with what i am teaching which is about salvation. whether it was important or not is not inmportant. it was most likely important at this time. but not for any salvation reason the passage should show this. since it speaks nothiing on whether they were saved or not. Or on how it was done. but only why it was done. Which wasnt for salvation or because it was a command in respect to the gospel message.

So every time you talk about the Gospel you say something about your commission to make disciples? I bet I can trip you up on that in this forum, alone! The reality is that "Can we deprive water" shows a bell-clanging connection between the Spirit at work and water baptism. Listen, the bells are clanging. Peter knew it was "past-due" for the Gentiles to be baptized, if they already showed the Spirit's work in them. I think we should heed Peter's direction to baptize people in water when it's past due.

the commision is to show and share your faith. it is to be done in speaking and acting and how you deal with life and how you handle life. water has nothing to do with it. scripture says one plants one waters but God saves. how is water baptism thrown in here in relation to commands and the gospel message. it was stated this way BECAUSE the JEWS were present who denied gentiles into the Church. and in there old LAW thinking water baptism was for them. SOP refusing a gentile water baptism was refusing them salvation. it was to make a point to them. not for salvation. Acts 15:8 should make that clear that God did nnot see there water baptism or at least did not count it as a must. only there HEART.

Yes. In water, typically.

NOPE never in water. only the Spirit read 1 cor 12:13. you for some reason HAVE to bring water into it.

Nope, not supported by the text. If that were true the Greek would read, "BEING BAPTIZED", not "BAPTIZING".

Absolutely. Water baptism is among the typical, external actions one disciple performs on a new disciple. It's commanded

why not use scripture to interpret scripture instead of language text. what is a comma used for?

=chuckle= I'm not in the habit of calling anything Scripture-slang when it says something I don't want it to. You asked if Scripture said such a thing. It does. It's possible you'll deny it, but it says such a thing. Mt 28:18-21

well i can see the point of saying it means water baptism, and doing it shows this asssociation or becoming a follower BUT i dont see it as a command NOR for any salvation purpose. ONLY as a use for showing you associate yourself with Christ and his work. So in how i see it and how you see it is not much different.

No. Baptism is always something one (subject) does to another (object). You don't baptize the Spirit. The verb just doesn't work that way. It doesn't Schroeder. When you are sent an email, does that mean you send anything? No. That's just an argument denying the actual meaning of what the Apostle wrote, Schroeder.

yes as in God spirit baptizing all those who truelly repent and believe on his Son. AND AGAIN have i EVER said it means the SPirit baptism. NO i say it refers to showing a association with the Body of Christ or the Church. you thinking it is water doesnt make it much different. and if you join something it is a verb or i shopuld say when you become like Christ it is a action it is doing somethinf. because it is HOW you live your life. it is changing how you have lived. becoming like christ is very much a verb to me. Is LOVE a verb(in language form) no. But actually it very much is.

 

[heymikey80]

well why have i not found any versions wrote like that. with out the comma. what does a comma infer.

I guess you don't own a UBS82.

so JESUS DID NOT water baptize.

Jesus' disciple ministry was always baptizing; it just wasn't Jesus Who was performing the baptism.

The disciples ordinarily wouldn't do something Jesus didn't want them to do -- certainly not for His ministry. You'll have to bring forward some demonstration that Jesus would permit people to baptize in His name when He didn't want it done.

When it's clear Jesus intended to baptize His disciples.

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. ... They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." Jn 3:22,26
​

The fact that Jesus Himself didn't baptize is a technical qualification. The Pharisees understood what was done under Jesus' approving discipleship, as something He authorized. I don't see one shade of reason to deny that understanding.

they were never command to water baptize either. it was a comman occurance and used for a lot of things.

Baptisms weren't public, and weren't ordinary types of things. They were part of the Jewish initiation rite of the day, sure.

one being ASSOCIATION with a group. which is what it was being used for here. Or was it the same as Johns. for forgiveness. when did Jesus explain to them it later would mean differently. how did they know it was meant for what you say it is when he JUST rose from the dead. and if it is a command why did they NEVER do it like they were commanded to. in the name of the father son and holy ghost.

=sigh=. Lack of information is not information about a lack. Undoubtedly the disciples definitely did baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The formula was pervasive in the church catholic by the 100's. There's little way historically that the formula could be so universal without the disciples all using the formula.

i t hibnk it was because they understood it was INTO and they can not join others INTOI the Body of Christ. only the Spirit can.

You defy historical facts. They did baptize this way. The early church did. Early church regulation of baptism (First Century, the Didache) and its regulation prescribe the triune formula.

NO YOU DONT. that is SO unscripturale its sad you believe that. doesnt even make since if you thought about it.
* * *
not scripturale. you notice you dont have any scripture to make your points. because there not there. the Spirit doesnt need water. God is bigger then that. its not the water yet God cant work without it. kind of contradictive. and if he isnt willing without it how does that speak of GRACE.

I said nothing unscriptural. "The Spirit signs vows to the Covenant of Grace using water." You simply took the converse and attacked that strawman.

You say the thing that is not so.

Even a man can fulfil vows without signing his name. So what? Men still sign their names to vows as well.

The Spirit is perfectly capable of signing vows to the Covenant of Grace without water. But He specifies a regular way of signing the Covenant. It's water.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. Acts 22:16
​

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mk 16:16
​

He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Lk 3:3
​

All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John. Lk 7:29-30
​

"John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?" Lk 20:4
​

"Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" Jn 1:25
​

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ... Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." Acts 2:38,41
​

Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." Ac 10:47
​

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. 1 Cor 6:11
​

Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." Jn 13:10
​

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. Rom 6:3-4
​

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 1 Cor 1:13
​

having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. Col 2:12
​

eight persons were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pt 3:20-21
​

to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word Ep 5:26
​

let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Heb 10:22
​

well does ONE mean TWO or does it mean what it says ONE as in 1. 1 cor 12:13 shows the ONE.

Oh, really? There are allusions to both sacraments in this verse.

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
​

Do you take the Lord's Supper? Why then do you drink of both Blood and Spirit?

Really, this is just a false distinction. Water baptism is baptism by the Spirit. The Lord's Supper is drinking of one Spirit.

so now you say water baptism is done by the SPirit. NO scripture for that one.

Just look at the list above. It's all over Scripture.

you may "help" make disciples by teaching but getting water baptized doesnt "make" you one. only God can truelly make you one. and it is through the Spirit.

And by the Spirit's involvement the water rite becomes baptism.

nice try. you say read it grammerly right but refuse to here. he said sent not to baptize BUT to preach the gospel.

Actually, grammatically, Paul said "It's not that I was sent to baptize". Paul didn't say, "I was sent not to baptize". Greek, my friend. Greek.

the gospel is about how we are to be SAVED. and you yourself say it is NOT part of salvation.

I didn't say that.

at least sort of.

I didn't say that!

since if you say it is a command and the Spirit is involved, it must be needed to be saved.

You assert a necessity where there is not one.

Christ commanded demons by the Spirit of God (sez Him), yet ... I haven't noticed any demons getting saved! No, this is just a false assertion of necessity. The Spirit can indeed do things and perform things by commandment, and yet those things aren't needed for salvation. Look at the Spiritual gifts. Check 1 Cor 12. "Must all prophesy? Must all speak in tongues?" No, no indeed!

you are contradictive in your thinking.

I'm sure I am in some respects, Schroeder. But how about you on this count?

So the best you could say is that he was not sent to do water baptism but give it to others. but as you say he did water baptize, so the point is something else.

The point, as I already said before, is that Paul was horrified people were creating divisions because they were baptized by this or that Apostle. Read 1 Cor 1. It has zilch to do with any theory that baptism isn't for this dispensation.

that it has not a thing to do with what i am teaching which is about salvation.

Clearly baptism has plenty to do with it.

Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood It isthe Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 Jn 5:5-8
​

whether it was important or not is not inmportant. it was most likely important at this time. but not for any salvation reason the passage should show this. since it speaks nothiing on whether they were saved or not. Or on how it was done. but only why it was done. Which wasnt for salvation or because it was a command in respect to the gospel message.

Just because Paul didn't consider it to be part of the Gospel message doesn't mean it wasn't considered to be part & parcel with accepting the Gospel message.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. Acts 22:16
​

Paul did after all baptize people in Corinth. It was relevant to the Gospel message! Look around Acts, baptism trails along every spread of the Gospel. Why? Because Jesus commanded the disciples to make disciples "baptizing and teaching" (Mt 28:18-21).

the commision is to show and share your faith. it is to be done in speaking and acting and how you deal with life and how you handle life. water has nothing to do with it. scripture says one plants one waters but God saves. how is water baptism thrown in here in relation to commands and the gospel message. it was stated this way BECAUSE the JEWS were present who denied gentiles into the Church. and in there old LAW thinking water baptism was for them. SOP refusing a gentile water baptism was refusing them salvation. it was to make a point to them. not for salvation. Acts 15:8 should make that clear that God did nnot see there water baptism or at least did not count it as a must. only there HEART.

No prooftexts? Sorry, it's either one baptism or it's two! You're hauling a second baptism back into the church just to show the Jews? That makes no sense. Which is it? One or two?

NOPE never in water. only the Spirit read 1 cor 12:13. you for some reason HAVE to bring water into it.
why not use scripture to interpret scripture instead of language text. what is a comma used for?

"Baptize" comes from a particular Greek word. Y'know what it comes from? means? "Plunge, soak, cover, wash, immerse, dip." Baptism is a bathing rite. Water soaks these passages, and is often flatly explicit (see above). The verses only dry out when they're dessicated by a theology. "Baptize" can be used figuratively, sure. But the figurative use has to draw from the imagery to have any meaning at all.

well i can see the point of saying it means water baptism, and doing it shows this asssociation or becoming a follower BUT i dont see it as a command NOR for any salvation purpose. ONLY as a use for showing you associate yourself with Christ and his work. So in how i see it and how you see it is not much different.

The external rite is empowered by the Spirit's presence and activity, and none other. It has no power of its own. The element and its application mean nothing without the Spirit at work in signing for the one baptized.

yes as in God spirit baptizing all those who truelly repent and believe on his Son. AND AGAIN have i EVER said it means the SPirit baptism. NO i say it refers to showing a association with the Body of Christ or the Church. you thinking it is water doesnt make it much different. and if you join something it is a verb or i shopuld say when you become like Christ it is a action it is doing somethinf. because it is HOW you live your life. it is changing how you have lived. becoming like christ is very much a verb to me. Is LOVE a verb(in language form) no. But actually it very much is.

It was never a question about whether it's a verb. The question was whether the verb is passive or active -- it's active. Christ baptizes in the Spirit.

And note how uncannily parallel the physical example is to the spiritual reality. Jesus' authority sends the Spirit inside a person; Jesus' authority sends disciples chasing after the Spirit to baptize a person. The two are coordinated. That's what the water is all about: it's the coordinated publicity of the Spirit's internal work in the world. It's the Spirit publicly proclaiming to be God to the one baptized.

 

[Dispy]

You know what is amusing?

It appears you are entertained by what "you guy" (your words) believe. Well, I am sadded by what you proclaim. It is apparent that you do not unders stand God's Word rightly divided.

Insertions made by Dispy.

Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM." And you say we need two? What do you think of the 3 mentioned in Matthew 3:11, or about the 12 baptisms mentioned in the Bible? Why did you only pick two?[/COLOR] He showed that the physical sign of the covenant was required in the Old Testament at the same time He required the spiritual sign of the circumcision of the heart. In the New Covenant God requires the physical sign of the covenant, baptism, and at the same time requires the spiritual baptism also. You can not have one without the other. In the Old Testament a person could not become one of God's people unless they were circumcised. In the New Testament a person can not become one of God's children without water baptism because it is the circumcision of Jesus Christ which is the sign of New Covenant membership. Chapter and verse please. Sounds like "the gospel of men to me.

Col 2:11-13 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Can't seem to find any water in this verse. It tells me it is done "through the faith of the operation of God," now by some human in a water ceremony.[

2> The other amusing thing is that you don't throw out the Lord's Supper, which is the remembrance of Christ's institution of the New Covenant, 1Cor.11:26 doesn't say that. [B ]which you say is not in effect today[/B]. PLEASE SHOW ME in what manner this Covenant is presently fulfilled. You say that the blood of Christ is effective for your salvation TRUE but you can't see that your salvation is based on God's promise of the New Covenant. My salvation is based on my placing my FAITH in the Cross work (death, burial and resurrection) of Christ, not on a covenant made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. God's promise to Israel that their sins would be forgiven and that He would remember their sins no more is a promise of the New Covenant in Jer 31:34 and you are appropriating that promise when you say that God has forgiven your sins because of the blood of Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant, while at the same time you are saying that the New Covenant isn't for you. No way am I going to steal the promises God made with Israel.

If the New Covenant is not in effect then your sins are not forgiven. You have no basis to say that your sins are forgiven apart from the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant. If we are under the New Covenant, the the Law would be written on my heart. But, as a member of the Body of Christ, I am not under LAW If the New Covenant is in effect, there is no longer any need for teachers. Why should Paul tells us that we are to be ambassadors for Christ? We should no longer have to study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2Tim.2:15).

You guys are a mixed up group of people. Not as mixed up as those that teach the doctrine of Law and Grace as one gospel.

You say that there are two gospels even though it has been vividly shown to you that Paul preached the same gospel throughout Acts that Peter did. You are accusing us of something that untrue. Gospel simply means "good news." We believe that there are many gospels (good news'] throughout the Bible. What most believe about the "two gospels" they say we believe is actruall two primary doctrines. There is the doctrine (gospel/good news) ot the Law, and there ais the doctrine (gospel/good news) of Grace. These are two good workable doctrines, each in their own right, but they are also opposing doctrines. Law = Do or pay the penalty, while Grace = unmerited favor. We do not teach these as one gospel, and study each as to who/what peoples they are addressed. We do not like to steal the other groups mail.

Paul and Peter divided ministries in Acts 15 but it wasn't until the 18th chapter that Paul went only to the Gentiles. Then here Paul shows what he taught to the Jews and Gentiles alike; Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Paul gave the Gentiles the same message that he gave to the Jews in Damascus and Jerusalem and throughout all the coasts of Judaea. It was the same message that Peter told the Jews in Acts 2 and the same message that Stephan gave the Jews in Acts 8.

To respond to the above, I am going to copy and Paste a response I made on another thread concerning ones comments on Acts 15. It contains most of what I would write in response to the above. I will respond to 26:20 after my copy and paste.

You are giving a very one-sided account of the Council at Jerusalem by just going to Acts 15. What about the account of the same meeting in Galatians 2. So if you really want to understand what went on at the meeting, STUDY both accounts.

Lets take a look at the primary participants, and their prominance. You have James, the Lord's brother, Peter, and John. Peter and John were both prominate disciples of Jesus, and spent their entire 3 years with Him during His earthly ministry. Even before Christ went back into heaven, He opened up their understanding of all the Scriptures. Not only that, at Pentecost they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. So we are looking for some very knowledgable representives at that meeting. They had the commission to preach "the gospel of the kingdom" to the world.

Also, we find Paul at that meeting. He is the relatively "new kid on the block." After his conversion, he didn't even to up to Jerusalem to communicate with the disciples of Jesus for any type of instructions. Looks like he just went out by himself.

Galatians 2, 1 and 2 says that after 14 years he went up to Jerusalem, by revelation, to communicate with the disciples that gospel which he preached. That indicates to me that to me that he was preaching a different gospel from the disciples. If it were the same gospel, then there would have been no reason for him to go there. Also, if they were preaching the same gospel, why would God sent him? He says in Galatians 1:11:1-2 "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

When Jesus was upon the earth, His instructions to His disciples pertained to the fulfillment of all the earthly promises to Israel. That is why He instructed them "Go not in the way of the Gentile." Paul says in Romans 15:8 that Jesus came to confirm the promises made to the fathers. Jesus Himself said: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

Paul got his commission from Jesus Christ from His heavenly position. It has nothing to do with the establishment of an earthly kingdom. Paul tells us in 2 Cor. 5:16 "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have know Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." What he means here, we are not to follow His earthly teachings.

Paul tells us in Romans 15:25 that we are established by his gospel "...and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began."

Now one would think at the meeting the disciples of Jesus would dominate, and show Paul a few things. They spent 3 years with the Master, and understood all the Scriptures.

But look what Galatians 2:6 and 7 says: "But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whosoever they were it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me , as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter:" Looks like Jesus told Paul things from His heavenly postion that He kept secret from the 12.

Did the disciples update Paul, or did Paul update them? What Paul added to them was about the gospel that he preached. Did Paul preach "the gospel of kingdom"? NO!! He preached the gospel "the gospel of the grace of God." AH, here is where Peter learned about the grace of God that he is speaking of in Acts 15. Peter is learning that Paul's message of uncircumcision (unLAW/GRACE) was far different then the message of circumcision (LAW) that Peter was commissioned to preach.

Paul says in verse 9 "And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, preceived that grace that was given unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship: the we should go to the heathen (Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision."

I appears to me that from this meeting; the disciples now understand that their "so called" great commission could not be carried out. That Israel is now in a set aside condition, and cannot be that nations of priests that was to be a blessing to "the families of the earth" that was promised Abram in Genesis 12:1-3, and what God promised in Exodus 19:3-7. Therefore, they stayed with the one who were saved under the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom." IMHO, they were not out of the will of God in staying with the circumcision.

Now, I think we can understand the context Acts 15 a little better. I think Peter in verses 7-11 is summarizing the results of the meeting. He is speaking for "his side."

I do believe he now fully understands what happened in Acts 10. In Acts 10 when God told Peter he was no longer to consider the Gentiles "unclean"; he knows that God put the Jews on the same level as He did the Gentiles at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. "For God concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all" (Romans 11:32).

Previously he preached "repent and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Those with Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Ghost with no sign of repentance and water baptism. No wonder Peter and those of the circumcision were so astonished.

From recalling the events of Acts 10, Peter now realizes that they were saved by GRACE through FAITH. Peter is realizing that times have changed.

In verse 10 he now realized that the yoke of the Law is now set aside. In vers 11 he is saying "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved, even as they.

Now if Cornelius and his group, were saved in the same manner as those previously saved, Peter would have said: "They were saved just as we were." But he doesn't say that. He says that they were saved by the grace of God, and they are saved the same way as Cornelius and his group were saved.

Yes, Peter learned what is "the gospel of the Grace of God" at that meeting. Did he preach it prior to that meeting? I doubt it very much. (end of copy and paste0

In Acts 26 we find Paul defending himself in from of King Agrippa. He is recounting his conversion on the road to Damascus. We is there because of the zealous Jews.

When Paul was first converted, he was not given the full knowledge of the mystery. Because of his love of his fellow countrymen, he went primarily to the Jews. During these meeting with the Jews, he used the OT Scriptures to prove the Jesus was the Christ. He preached "repent and return to God, and do works meet for repentance." So repent means the same under the Law as it does in this dispensation of Grace. It simply means to turn from your wicked ways. He did not however preach "repent and be baptized, and yea shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Also, Paul is not saying that they must do the deed/works what the Law required. Even today we should be preaching for one to repent, turn their life around, and do the works that are consistant with a Christian walk. Paul tell us in Eph.3:10 that we are saved unto good works.

Sadly I realize that this fact will not sway you because what you believe is more important that the truth from God's Word but you will not be able to plead ignorance because the truth is before you. What you are teaching is dangerous because it is another gospel which seeks to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I feel bad that you are so sad that you cannot sway me from my beliefs based upon what you posted. What I believe is based upon God's Holy Word, and I am secure in my salvation, and because of that, I rejoice. Don't be so sad, rejoice with me.

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

 

[Schroeder]

I guess you don't own a UBS82.

nope guess not i will look it up though.

Jesus' disciple ministry was always baptizing; it just wasn't Jesus Who was performing the baptism.

The disciples ordinarily wouldn't do something Jesus didn't want them to do -- certainly not for His ministry. You'll have to bring forward some demonstration that Jesus would permit people to baptize in His name when He didn't want it done.

But it was not made a focal point anywhere in scripture. and Jesus never spoke about it. it isnt a matter of him wanting it or not it is why was it done. it is obviouse that before his glorification it was not done for the reason you insist it is done, as in by or through the Spirit, seeing how the Spirit was not around yet. so what was it done for before his sacrifice and the Spirit.

When it's clear Jesus intended to baptize His disciples.

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. ... They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." Jn 3:22,26

​

The fact that Jesus Himself didn't baptize is a technical qualification. The Pharisees understood what was done under Jesus' approving discipleship, as something He authorized. I don't see one shade of reason to deny that understanding.

so he did not water baptize, and the reason is obviouse. because it was told by john he would baptize us in the Spirit. So why would he teach water baptism. again it is WHY the did it. and it isnt the reason you think it is done now because Christ was not in the SPirit yet.

Baptisms weren't public, and weren't ordinary types of things. They were part of the Jewish initiation rite of the day, sure.

some were and i think it was a common way to cleanse or bless ect. but i am not a historian on that so i will concede. But as stated above, it was certainly different before and after his sacrifice.

=sigh=. Lack of information is not information about a lack. Undoubtedly the disciples definitely did baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The formula was pervasive in the church catholic by the 100's. There's little way historically that the formula could be so universal without the disciples all using the formula.

well scripture does not show this. so there is a chance they did not. and the FATHERS are not infalible by anymeans. they had issues right off the bat in the Church and misunderstanding so the traditions can be wrong.

You defy historical facts. They did baptize this way. The early church did. Early church regulation of baptism (First Century, the Didache) and its regulation prescribe the triune formula.

the early Church was pretty far after Christ and like i said they are not perfect. they have been ADDING to the simple gospel since the VERY beginning.

I said nothing unscriptural. "The Spirit signs vows to the Covenant of Grace using water." You simply took the converse and attacked that strawman.

GRACE has nothing to do with water. and again i see you provide no scripture. the straw man is to say tradition shows this true. God doesnt need water for anything and ACTS 15:8 proves this. there is no water involved in getting the Spirit, ONLY a true heart. that is ALL God sees. the heart. actions in your life dont show this only what is in the heart and that only GOD sees. all the WORKS you do are not for God(the physical aspects of them are not seen but the Spiritual aspects of them)

Even a man can fulfil vows without signing his name. So what? Men still sign their names to vows as well.

The Spirit is perfectly capable of signing vows to the Covenant of Grace without water. But He specifies a regular way of signing the Covenant. It's water.

no scripture again. the SPirit does a very specific thing it unites you to christ sacrifice. water HAS NO bearing on this at all. that is what Christ Spirit bapotism is for. there is NO SIGNING of the covenant. the signing is done in your heart again Acts 15:8 shows this. its called the circumsion of your heart.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. Acts 22:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mk 16:16

​

He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Lk 3:3

​

All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John. Lk 7:29-30

​

"John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?" Lk 20:4

​

"Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" Jn 1:25

​

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ... Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." Acts 2:38,41

​

Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." Ac 10:47

​

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. 1 Cor 6:11

​

Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." Jn 13:10

​

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. Rom 6:3-4

​

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 1 Cor 1:13

​

having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. Col 2:12

​

eight persons were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pt 3:20-21

​

to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word Ep 5:26

​

let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Heb 10:22​

you cant lumb the water baptism before and after Christ sacrifice, it is obvious they cant be the same. since his glorification was not done yet. John 7:30- and the others after were most all ,but Acts 10:47-48 and one other, about the Spirit baptism

​

Oh, really? There are allusions to both sacraments in this verse.

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

​

Do you take the Lord's Supper? Why then do you drink of both Blood and Spirit?

dont think so. or maybe so they are illusions by you. not a thing to do with water any any form. you must go with what it says we are baptized by the ONE SPIRIT. so the drink part is OBVIOUSLY to do with the Spirit. why does it not say for we were all water baptized by the one Spirit. because it doesnt make since. it is obvious we join the body when the Spirit is put in us. which as scripture says in Eph 1:13-14 when we believe. how in our hearts acts 15:8

Really, this is just a false distinction. Water baptism is baptism by the Spirit. The Lord's Supper is drinking of one Spirit.

no it is not not even close. there is only ONE BAPTISM. not two in one or one in two parts.

Just look at the list above. It's all over Scripture.

sorry but those are misused or misinterpreted.

And by the Spirit's involvement the water rite becomes baptism.

no scripture again unless you twist the ones above.

Actually, grammatically, Paul said "It's not that I was sent to baptize". Paul didn't say, "I was sent not to baptize". Greek, my friend. Greek.

doesnt make much differnce. he still said BUT to preach the gospel. he didnt ever say anything about water baptism in relation to being saved or as part of it.

I didn't say that.

I didn't say that!

might have been someone else. sorry if so.

You assert a necessity where there is not one.

Christ commanded demons by the Spirit of God (sez Him), yet ... I haven't noticed any demons getting saved! No, this is just a false assertion of necessity. The Spirit can indeed do things and perform things by commandment, and yet those things aren't needed for salvation. Look at the Spiritual gifts. Check 1 Cor 12. "Must all prophesy? Must all speak in tongues?" No, no indeed!

not our command. and gifts are not commands either. which i think is what your saying but i am a bit confused on what your trying to say.

I'm sure I am in some respects, Schroeder. But how about you on this count?

The point, as I already said before, is that Paul was horrified people were creating divisions because they were baptized by this or that Apostle. Read 1 Cor 1. It has zilch to do with any theory that baptism isn't for this dispensation.

no he was upset they were putting there faith on the one who baptized not on the one who was being taught or who the baptism was to be done to associate yourself with. they were associasting themselves to the baptizer not to the one being spoke of by the baptizer. that being Christ.

Clearly baptism has plenty to do with it.

Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood It isthe Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 Jn 5:5-8​

this is not about salvation but about Christ being REAL a real person. it was not a story. he was who he said he was. not anything to do with what we do to show we believed him. the water was his water baptism to show he , the saviour had arrived, the Spirit was that which came on him and his blood was his sacrifice.

Just because Paul didn't consider it to be part of the Gospel message doesn't mean it wasn't considered to be part & parcel with accepting the Gospel message.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. Acts 22:16

​

Paul did after all baptize people in Corinth. It was relevant to the Gospel message! Look around Acts, baptism trails along every spread of the Gospel. Why? Because Jesus commanded the disciples to make disciples "baptizing and teaching" (Mt 28:18-21).

show were he states or anby of them states it is. water doesnt wash your sins away. the Spirit does when in Spirit baptism you are joined with his sacrifice and his blood cleanses you. the same is spoken in Rom 6

No prooftexts? Sorry, it's either one baptism or it's two! You're hauling a second baptism back into the church just to show the Jews? That makes no sense. Which is it? One or two?

no you are ther is only one the SPirit. not two in one or one in ywo parts. that is what you are doing.

"

Baptize" comes from a particular Greek word. Y'know what it comes from? means? "Plunge, soak, cover, wash, immerse, dip." Baptism is a bathing rite. Water soaks these passages, and is often flatly explicit (see above). The verses only dry out when they're dessicated by a theology. "Baptize" can be used figuratively, sure. But the figurative use has to draw from the imagery to have any meaning at all.

which is what the Spirit does, which is why it say you were baptized into Christ you were clothed in Chirst. because the Spirit covers you. it overwhelmes you. So try to look at the word in that way.

The external rite is empowered by the Spirit's presence and activity, and none other. It has no power of its own. The element and its application mean nothing without the Spirit at work in signing for the one baptized.

that is true and the Spirit does not need us to do anything to start it up. for one you cant do anything for God or be obediant with out the SPirit already in you. so you are saved and the Spirit has cleansed you before you get wet. there is no scripture for this SIGNING idea of yours. sounds good tough.

It was never a question about whether it's a verb. The question was whether the verb is passive or active -- it's active. Christ baptizes in the Spirit.

true and this baptism is active

And note how uncannily parallel the physical example is to the spiritual reality. Jesus' authority sends the Spirit inside a person; Jesus' authority sends disciples chasing after the Spirit to baptize a person. The two are coordinated. That's what the water is all about: it's the coordinated publicity of the Spirit's internal work in the world. It's the Spirit publicly proclaiming to be God to the one baptized.

you can say that but it is all imagery for you not reality. how you live your life is your signiture to your faith in Christ. not one act.

 

[heymikey80]

But it was not made a focal point anywhere in scripture. and Jesus never spoke about it. it isnt a matter of him wanting it or not it is why was it done. it is obviouse that before his glorification it was not done for the reason you insist it is done, as in by or through the Spirit, seeing how the Spirit was not around yet. so what was it done for before his sacrifice and the Spirit.

Well I think the Spirit of God was "around" saving people before Jesus was crucified. The question again is one of the Spirit's new apostleship, it's not that the Spirit of God wasn't working before Jesus was crucified (Cf. Gen 1:1-2, John 3:5, Heb 9:8, 12:9, and throughout the Old Testament).

The Spirit was specially sent to the disciples of Jesus Christ, certainly. But He was here.He was always here.