Water Baptism

[GLJCA]

i said i would get back to add scripture. patient. Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38, 1 cor 12:13, are obviouse ones not about water baptism. the same should be said for refering it to water baptism when we are CLEARLY told we would be baptised by the Spirit by Christ. So we see it signifies CLEANSING which the SPIRIT baptism does COMPLETLY. Not water baptism. funny the new testement doesnt say much good of circumcision. Paul said if you did it Christ would profit you nothing.

You are right they are not speaking of water baptism. Luke and Mark are not speaking of us at all they are speaking of the Lord Jesus and His crucifixion therefore those can not be used to show that baptism is not relevant for us today. 1 Cor 12:13 is speaking of spirit baptism but we have no control over that baptism. We are never commanded in scripture to be baptized in the spirit.

how is John 7:38-39 NOT about the SPirit baptism. it says in verse 39 WHom those who believe would RECEIVE. How might i ask do we receive it. all scripture that speaks of this says AFTER belief. NO the SPirit baptism places us into Christ sacrifice. Rom 6. this saves us WHICH is when we are placed in the body or CHURCH. the body of Christ is the Church not his death. if you refuse to see Spirit baptism as ONLY through Christ and by Christ when we believe you will not see it or be able to. notice 1 cor 12:13 says we are all given the one Spirit to DRINK, clearly a reference to water but yet it is about the SPirit. read 2 cor 3:6, but the Spirit gives life,3:17 now the lord is Sp[irit, Gal 3:3 HAVING BEGUN IN THE SPIRIT. read gal 3:2 DID YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT BY OBSEVING THE LAW OR BY BELIEVING WHAT YOU HEARD? (the gospel). So we see Paul does NOT mention water baptism when he speaks of receiving the Spirit. which goes with Eph 1:13-14, when you heard the Truth, the gospel of salvation, having believed you were MARKED in him with a SEAL, the promised Holy SPirit quarenteeing our inheratance. So it seems clear to me we receive this Spirit apon belief in the gospel message. which as Paul states is not about water baptism but about Christ death for us and his ressurection. 2 Thess 2:13 says we are SANCTIFIED BY THGE SPIRIT. So iut is clear by SCRIPTURE that they never but SPirit and water baptism together. the SPirit is spoke about a ton more then water baptism.

I do see the spirit baptism as only through Christ. The difference between us is that I don't see spirit baptism in scripture apart from water baptism, which is the sign of the New Covenant.

You are mixing up the indwelling of the spirit with the baptism of the spirit. The baptism of the spirit is when the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ not when the Holy Spirit indwells us. That is clearly explained in 1Cor 12:13. We are placed or buried into the body of Christ at our water baptism which is the only baptism that have anything to do with. You, yourself, said that 1Cor 12:13 references water. We are commanded to be water baptized and not to do so would be disobedient to God.





The context of 1Peter 3:21-22 connects baptism with water. Look at this scripture again. There is a direct reference to water but no reference at all to the Spirit. How could you interpret that scripture the way you did unless you read into it what you wanted it to say?

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:




​

not true at all. if so why would john the baptist not say christ would baptize us with the Spirit through water baptism. he didnt say that. read John 3:5-8 he says born from above. he says Spirit gives the Spirit. in verse 8 he says So it is with those BORN OF THE SPIRIT. again you see he does not mix the two at all. yes we can control whether or not we are baptized by the Spirit. if we do not TRUELLY believe in our hearts we will not get Spirit baptized. that is why Mark 16:16 says TWICE if you do not believe you are condemed. just like what he said in John 3:18. it is GOds work which is why it is CALLED GRACE. WE HAVE NO PART OF IT. NONE

Again you miss the purpose of baptism, which is common amongst Dispensationalists. Remember baptism is the sign of the covenant of God corresponding with the Old Testament sign of circumcision. Someone who refused the sign of the covenant in the OT could not be spiritually circumcised in their heart. Only those who had the outward sign could receive the inward sign.

Your belief that a person does not need the outward sign but yet can still receiving the inward sign is not scriptural. Remember only those who were circumcised in the flesh or under the roof of someone who was circumcised had the privilege of even having their sins forgiven. Only Israel had the privilege of calling themselves the people of God. All nations outside of the covenant people of God were considered heathen. It was to the Covenant people of God that He said,
Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. not to the heathen outside of the covenant.

You are trying to say that God changed everything in the New Testament yet we see no place where God explains any change in the way the covenant had been administered for hundreds of years. God always required a physical sign and a spiritual sign of the covenant. God would have had to clearly explain to the Jews of the first century that everything had changed. Can you show me God's clear command and explanation that the physical sign of the covenant is no longer needed?

I don't understand. You disagreed with me saying we do have control over spirit baptism but then you turned around and said that we don't and that God has control. Who is in control of spiritually placing us into the body of Christ? You nor I have control over that. Is believing the magical key to spirit baptism? The devils believe and tremble but they are not spiritually baptized into the body of Christ. Look at Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. It is God's choice not our's.

read this passage then read Hebrews 9:14-15. How much more, then will the BLOOD of Christ, who THROUGH the eternal SPIRIT offered himself unblemished to God, CLEANSE OUR CONSCIENCES from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God. Read 1 cor 2 we can serve him AFTER we receive the SPirit, whichb is when we truelly believe in our hearts about christ sacrifice, the gospel. versde 15 For this reason Christ is the mediator OF A NEW COVENANT, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. (eph 1:13-14). Christ is our sign of this new covenant because that ias what God sees in us CHRIST and NOT our flesh or us. So 1 Peter 3:21 is about the SPirit baptism bacause just as the waters in the FLOOD were the work of GOd to cleanse the earth so the work of God through Spirit baptism is the Work of God to cleanse our hearts and conscience through Christ. Titus 3:5, heb 9:14-15. so water baptism is not a reguirement as SCRIPTURE has proven. if you wish to see it.

Where does it say that Christ is the sign of the New Covenant? It says that He is the mediator not the sign of the New Covenant. God, himself, was the mediator of the Old Covenant yet He still required a physical sign placed on His people.

1 Peter 3:21 says that eight people were saved by water and then he says the "like figure" is true of baptism. Baptism saves(rescues us from destruction) us by giving us a good conscience toward God. When we are obedient to God we have a good conscience toward Him when we are disobedient we don't.

Baptism is the sign of the covenant and only those who are baptized in water enter into the covenant people of God. Salvation is being in covenant with God. If you are outside of God's covenant people you are considered a heathen.

no it was not. the passover meal and what it was for did. the blood over the doors represented Christ future sacrifice that is why it was done. as was all the sacrifices for there sins in the temple. water baptism did not replace this circumcision. no scripture says that and no apostles EVER taught that.

Come on now. All ceremonial blood rites in the Old Testament pointed to the shedding of the blood of Christ. A few posts back I shared the comparison of circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New, both signified the same thing. Circumcision was the sign for the Old but now God requires a sign for the New, which Paul tells us plainly is baptism. Col 2:11-12 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.
Here Paul connects the dots for us. He connects circumcision and baptism. If you want more proof study out the comparisons for yourself.

no the SPirit baptism is. your change in life or how you act and behave is the sign. this is what PEOPLe will see NOT water baptism who sees it other then those in your church. we are told to TEACH the gospel which will make disciples when they believe in christ which in turn wioll baptize them into the Church 1 cor 12:13. SALVATION makes you a member or HEIR to God, which is the same as the being a member of the Church. again eph 1:13-14.

Well you said before that Christ was the sign, now you are saying that your change in life or the way you act or behave is the sign. There is a lot of confusion over what is the true sign of covenant membership because everyone has taken the Old Testament out of the equation. They treat the Word of God like a patchwork quilt instead of seeing it as a seamless garment, flowing from Old to New. When you compare the OT sign of the Covenant and what it signified and compare it to baptism there is no doubt that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant.

You are under the mistaken impression that the sign of the covenant is for a witness to the world but that is not true. The sign is for you alone. Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. The sign is signifying to you that God has taken you out of the world and placed or buried you into His body, the Church. The sign is an obligation to you to live a holy and obedient life toward God. It has nothing to do with the world other than to tell it that it has lost another one.

God never has majored on the spiritual and cast out the physical. He has never done that in the history of the Covenant people of God. He always required the physical and the spiritual. There is no place in scripture that tells us that the physical sign of the covenant is no longer needed yet there are many scriptures commanding it.

Sorry but you misquoted this scripture. Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: That is nothing like your quote. This scripture is a command to the disciples of Christ to baptize. He is telling His disciples to go, teach, and baptize. If water baptism can be spiritualize out of this verse then going and teaching has to go with it. There is nothing in this verse to support the way you quoted it.

Salvation is being in Covenant with God. A person who isn't in covenant is a heathen. A person has always entered into the covenant of God through taking the sign of the covenant. The sign of the covenant in the New Testament is baptism, which is compared to the OT sign, circumcision.

SO no it is not anti scriptural at all. the Scripture is speaking MOSTLY all about the work of the spirit not the work of man. the flesh counts for NOTHING. the SPirit is life. a reading of hebrews 9-10 should make it clear it is christ and the SPirit in salvation and that is ALL. whethe ror not water baptism is need or should be done is mute since we are already saved before we do it. because for one we can not please God or worship him outside of the SPirit.

Again I must disagree that water baptism is a mute point. Refusal to receive the sign of the covenant in the OT resulted in explusion from the people of God. Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Since baptism is the New Covenant sign, he who refuses to be baptized can not enter into the Church and there is no salvation outside of the Church of Jesus Christ.

GLJCA

 

[Covenant Heart]

Come on now. All ceremonial blood rites in the Old Testament pointed to the shedding of the blood of Christ. A few posts back I shared the comparison of circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New, both signified the same thing. Circumcision was the sign for the Old but now God requires a sign for the New, which Paul tells us plainly is baptism. Col 2:11-12 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.
Here Paul connects the dots for us. He connects circumcision and baptism. If you want more proof study out the comparisons for yourself.

You Mean That Somebody...


...finally put it together?

I can scarcely believe my eyes!

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

The sign of the New Covenant is not water baptism. Somebody fabricated that one out of thin air. The sign of the New Covenant is the "cup" (of wine).

1 Cor 11:25 "This cup is (ie represents) the new testament in my blood..."

 

[Covenant Heart]

The sign of the New Covenant is not water baptism. Somebody fabricated that one out of thin air. The sign of the New Covenant is the "cup" (of wine).

1 Cor 11:25 "This cup is (ie represents) the new testament in my blood..."

For Another Opinion, See Ge 17...


If I'm not mistaken, GLJCA cited the Co 2 text to indicate that baptism functions now where circumcision once stood. You can, of course, hold that things just don't work that way. But Co 2 says that they do.

The relationship of sign the covenant is too seldom grasped. Ge 17:10 and 13 state that circumcision IS the covenant. Does the sign save? No. But it is the nature of sacramental language that the sign and the reality signified are used interchangeably. That is why it is correct to say that circumcision is the covenant (Ge 17:10,13), that Christ is our Passover (1Co 5:7), that wine is the new covenant (Lu 22:20; 1Co 11:25) and that Christ is our circumcision (Co 2:11-13).

Speaking of which, Paul makes much of our being the true circumcision (Ph 3:3; cf. false Jews in Re 3:9). This contrasts the true circumcision to the dogs, to evil workers and to the false circumcision. Paul makes his point emphatic by the triple imperative, “blepo,” (beware) in parallel form. So insistent is he that Paul refuses to say “circumcision” at all! He says, “beware the ‘katatome!’” This is a contemptuous statement. Paul heaps sarcasm on mutilating "flesh choppers." Moreover, Paul's counter statement is introduced by the most emphatic predicate nominative, "we ARE the "peritome" (circumcision)!

If in being buried with Christ in baptism, we were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, then we don't need to show that baptism is the sign of covenant admission; for that is established on the weight of the Biblical witness to circumcision as the covenant sign (Ge 17). All we need show is that baptism the bloodless sign of the same promise in the same place that circumcision once stood. Which brings us back to Co 2:11-13.

That circumcision and baptism so relate witnesses not only that baptism is the covenant sign of admission where circumcision once stood; it shows also that there is one and the same promise, differently administered in Old and New Testament times, from Abraham into the eschaton, so that they who did not receive what was promised will not be made perfect without us who have received it (He 11:39-40). That is Biblical eschatology.

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

For Another Opinion, See Ge 17...


If I'm not mistaken, GLJCA cited the Co 2 text to indicate that baptism functions now where circumcision once stood. You can, of course, hold that things just don't work that way. But Co 2 says that they do.

Col 2:11-12 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.

"baptism functions now where circumcision once stood"

Read the passage carefully. Both baptism and circumcision are done without hands - meaning without human operations - both are done as operations of God. It escapes me how you can get an idea of "replacement" from this. The passage clearly states that both operations are now performed non-human but by God Himself. The passage does not even imply a substitution of baptism for circumcision.

 

[Dispy]

For Another Opinion, See Ge 17...


If I'm not mistaken, GLJCA cited the Co 2 text to indicate that baptism functions now where circumcision once stood. You can, of course, hold that things just don't work that way. But Co 2 says that they do.[/QUOTE

Col 2:11-12 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.

"baptism functions now where circumcision once stood"

Read the passage carefully. Both baptism and circumcision are done without hands - meaning without human operations - both are done as operations of God. It escapes me how you can get an idea of "replacement" from this. The passage clearly states that both operations are now performed non-human but by God Himself. The passage does not even imply a substitution of baptism for circumcision.

AMEN Dennis

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

 

[Dispy]

For Another Opinion, See Ge 17...


If I'm not mistaken, GLJCA cited the Co 2 text to indicate that baptism functions now where circumcision once stood. You can, of course, hold that things just don't work that way. But Co 2 says that they do.

Col 2:11-12 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.

"baptism functions now where circumcision once stood"

Read the passage carefully. Both baptism and circumcision are done without hands - meaning without human operations - both are done as operations of God. It escapes me how you can get an idea of "replacement" from this. The passage clearly states that both operations are now performed non-human but by God Himself. The passage does not even imply a substitution of baptism for circumcision.

AMENDennis

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

 

[Covenant Heart]

Both baptism and circumcision are done without hands - meaning without human operations - both are done as operations of God. It escapes me how you can get an idea of "replacement" from this. The passage clearly states that both operations are now performed non-human but by God Himself. The passage does not even imply a substitution of baptism for circumcision.

And The Same Is Said Of Circumcision:

“Circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer” (De 10:16).

“Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live” (De 30:6).

“Circumcise yourselves to Yahweh and remove the foreskins of your heart” (Je 4:4).

So we should hardly be surprised when Paul says that:

“He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. He is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Ro 2:28-29).

That “not a Jew outwardly nor is circumcision outward in the flesh” is the point behind the Phi 3 text. What we’re dealing with is a reluctance to affirm the spiritual import of circumcision. For once we do that, it is more difficult to avoid the analogy between them.

Speaking of which, the analogy surfaces in another way. Few churches I know receive people as members or admit them to the Lord’s Table without baptism. OK–I don’t know of any. But why is that? Whenever I ask that, I always get the same answer. “Because it’s Biblical.” Be that as it may, I’m struck that those who reject the analogy still uphold it. Just as gentiles joining Israel were required to be circumcised as the sign of admission into the covenant community, so those who deny the analogy none the less require baptism as a condition of membership in the covenant community. They must receive the sign.

We affirm that it is God who performs both circumcision and baptism, so the Author and Guarantor of both are the same. Both direct us to love God with all our heart (De 30:6 and Je 4:4 cf. Ro 2:29) so their content and import are the same. And even where the analogy is denied, we receive proselytes by baptism in place of the terms where circumcision once stood. When baptistic churches en-mass drop baptism as a term of membership and open up the Lord’s Table to all who believe, I’ll rethink my view.

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

And The Same Is Said Of Circumcision:

“Circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer” (De 10:16).

“Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live” (De 30:6).

“Circumcise yourselves to Yahweh and remove the foreskins of your heart” (Je 4:4).

So we should hardly be surprised when Paul says that:

“He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. He is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Ro 2:28-29).

That “not a Jew outwardly nor is circumcision outward in the flesh” is the point behind the Phi 3 text. What we’re dealing with is a reluctance to affirm the spiritual import of circumcision. For once we do that, it is more difficult to avoid the analogy between them.

Speaking of which, the analogy surfaces in another way. Few churches I know receive people as members or admit them to the Lord’s Table without baptism. OK–I don’t know of any. But why is that? Whenever I ask that, I always get the same answer. “Because it’s Biblical.” Be that as it may, I’m struck that those who reject the analogy still uphold it. Just as gentiles joining Israel were required to be circumcised as the sign of admission into the covenant community, so those who deny the analogy none the less require baptism as a condition of membership in the covenant community. They must receive the sign.

We affirm that it is God who performs both circumcision and baptism, so the Author and Guarantor of both are the same. Both direct us to love God with all our heart (De 30:6 and Je 4:4 cf. Ro 2:29) so their content and import are the same. And even where the analogy is denied, we receive proselytes by baptism in place of the terms where circumcision once stood. When baptistic churches en-mass drop baptism as a term of membership and open up the Lord’s Table to all who believe, I’ll rethink my view.

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

The analogy boils down to tradition - not to scripture. The analogy disappears when baptism is understood in its Old Testament origin. John did not start something new. He was carrying on the ceremonial inauguration into the Priesthood for the Kingdom of Priests Ex 19:6. See my post many pages back. Once this is understood, then water baptism has scriptural support for its significance.

 

[Dispy]

To fully understand the meaning of water baptism, one need to know the history of that water write.

In Matthew 10:5-7 we find Jesus COMMANDING His disciples to preach "the kingdom at hand" (about to be set up) to the Jews only.

Why to the Jews only? Because it was prophesied in Isaiah 42:6 that they were to be "for a light unto the Gentiles." Wasn't Abram promised that the nations (Gentiles) would be blessed through his seed (Israel) and didn't God tell Moses that if they kept the covenants of God that they would be "a nation of priests (Exodus 19:3-7)."

For one to enter the Jewish priesthood that one had to go through a ceremonial washing (baptism) (Exodus 30:17-21).

John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, preached "the gospel of the kingdom" and "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." John came to prepare Israel to be that nation of priests. That is why he came baptizing.

After the crucifixion of Christ Jesus gave the 11, the "so called" great commission (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-18). Water baptism was included in that commission. According to Luke 24:47, they were to begin at Jerusalem. Why? Because that is where Moss's seat was and the scribes and Pharisees sat in it, Matthew 23:2,3. How else could the nation of Israel be "a light unto the Gentiles" unless the leaders and children of Israel became that "nation of priest" by accepting their long promised Messiah. I doubt if the 12 could have done it all by themselves in their lifetime.

How did the leaders respond?. Well first they rejected God the Father when they refused to be baptized of John and ALLOWED him to be killed. Then they rejected God the Son when they DEMANNDED that Jesus be Crucified. Even after Peter gave them an opportunity for Jesus, and His kingdom, to return (Acts 3:14-21) they rejected the Holy Ghost by KILLING (stoning) Stephen.

Now that the Jews, as a nation, rejected the Trinity, How could they be that "nation of priests" and a "light unto the Gentiles?" How could that "everlasting kingdom" be set up when they rejected the King and His kingdom. How could all the OT promises made to the Jewish fathers be fulfilled? They can't as long as the Jews do not recognize their King. The Jews, as a nation, do not recognize Jesus as their long promised Messiah, even to this day.

How is the "good news" of "the gospel of the kingdom" through the "so called" great commission going to now go to the nations now? Didn't the 12, that were commissioned to go to the nations, agree with Paul that he should go to the heathen (Gentiles) and that they would stay with the "circumcision" (Jews)? Are the 12 now out of the will of God? Wasn't Paul raised up to go to the Gentiles, kings and children of Israel? Why was there a need for Paul to be raised up to go the entire world alone when there were already 12 commissioned to do so? Did Paul go about preaching "the gospel of the kingdom" (Law) and "the kingdom at hand?" No!!! He never once offered the kingdom and the gospel he preached was "the gospel of the grace of God." Aren't Grace and Law opposite doctrines? He never once preached "repent and be baptize" as Peter did.

We learn from Romans 11:7-12, that Israel as been temporarily blinded until "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (rapture of Body of Christ) vs 25, and then "all Israel shall be saved; as it is written..." vs 26. After the rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ, the dispensation of Grace will have ended and the dispensation of the Law will resume and the gospel of the kingdom will again be preached, "before the end come."

The "good news" of the gospel today is not "the kingdom is at hand," and "repent and be baptized," but salvation by "grace through faith" in the cross work of Christ. The Law was nailed to the cross and works are no longer in for salvation to demonstrate that faith.

I said all of the above to show that the rite of water baptism was connected to the nation of Israel only. We learn from Hebrews 7 & 8 that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, with its washings (baptisms), was done away with. Christ is now our high priest after the order of Meschisedec, a Gentile priest. There is no water connected to that priesthood. Not once in Paul's Epistles does he require water baptism. Yes he did baptize a few but that was before he received the full knowledge of "the mystery."

Today according to Eph 4:5 there is only "one baptism." It is the baptism of 1Cor12:13 "For by one Spirit (Holy Spirit) are we all baptized into one body...." the Body of Christ (dry cleaned).`

I can see no reason or commandment for the water rite of baptism for the Body of Christ today. Yes it was a requirement under "the gospel of the kingdom."

 

[Schroeder]

You are right they are not speaking of water baptism. Luke and Mark are not speaking of us at all they are speaking of the Lord Jesus and His crucifixion therefore those can not be used to show that baptism is not relevant for us today. 1 Cor 12:13 is speaking of spirit baptism but we have no control over that baptism. We are never commanded in scripture to be baptized in the spirit.

i was not speaking of it being relative to us BUT to how the WORD is used and that it CAN NOT be made to mean JUST water baptism. and i do know 1 cor 12:13 is not of our controll as being doen but it is in getting it because we must first BELIEVE in our hearts the gospel is true. no it is not commanded because salvation is not command it is our choice and the SPirit baptism is what saves us PERIOD. because it unites us to Christ sacrifice.

I do see the spirit baptism as only through Christ. The difference between us is that I don't see spirit baptism in scripture apart from water baptism, which is the sign of the New Covenant.

eph 1:13-14 does not mention water at all when it speaks of receiving it. acts 10 they did not get water baptized before they received it. Titus 3:5 does not mention water baptism. john 3:16 no water. every time the Spirit is mentioned water is not.

You are mixing up the indwelling of the spirit with the baptism of the spirit. The baptism of the spirit is when the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ not when the Holy Spirit indwells us. That is clearly explained in 1Cor 12:13. We are placed or buried into the body of Christ at our water baptism which is the only baptism that have anything to do with. You, yourself, said that 1Cor 12:13 references water. We are commanded to be water baptized and not to do so would be disobedient to God.

there is not TWO Spirit baptism or two types. read eph 4. there is ONLY ONE. you do NOT receive the indwelling until you receive the baptism. the baptism of the Spirit is when the Spirit comes to indwell in you. Again in eph 1:13-14 it says CLEARLY that we receive the Spirit when we believe. it DOES NOT say when we believe and are water baptized. gal 3:27 it says we were baptized INTO christ, what is christ, he is the body,(1 cor 12:13). gal 4:6 God sent the SPirit of his son INTO our hearts. Gal 3:14 ..So that by Faith we might receive the promised of the Spirit. Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and i no longer live but christ lives in me. the life i live in the BODY i live by FAITH in the son of God,.. gal 3 Did you receive the Spirit by observing the Law or by believing what you heard. (the gospel) Rom 8:2 Because through Christ Jesus the LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE set me FREE from the Law of sin and death. rom 8:8 THOSE CONTROLLLED BY THE SINFUL NATURE CONNOT PLEASE GOD. tell me are you in sin when you are getting ready to be water baptized. or is the fact that you desided to get water baptized free you from sin. NOPE you say it is being OBEDIANT to God to get water baptized. you say getting water baptized is when you get the baptism of the Spirit or receive it.(though scripture says otherwise) HOW might i ask can you be OBEDIANT when the passages i just gave say you cannot please GOd with out it or in sin. if you are not saved you are not free from sinfull nature. rom 8:9.... And if anyone does NOT have the SPirit of Christ; he does NOT belong to Christ. AGIAN you have to PROVE we can be obediant in our sinfull nature, when scripture says we cant with out the SPirit. and with scripture i might add since that is what you asked of me.

The context of 1Peter 3:21-22 connects baptism with water. Look at this scripture again. There is a direct reference to water but no reference at all to the Spirit. How could you interpret that scripture the way you did unless you read into it what you wanted it to say?

what does John the baptist say Christ will baptize us with. why do you insist on all references to baptism being ONLY water if this is a FACT. it speaks of the FLOOD this is the water it is referencing NOT the water of water baptism. WHO sent the FLOOD "waters" whos work was it GODS. NOAH was not saved BY the water but THROUGH the waters. the ARK saved him and it was his FAITH to believe GOD when he told him to build it. Then it says this water SYMPOLISES baptism that now saves you also NOT the removal of water but the pledge of a good conscience toward GOD. true BELIEF. again read heb 9:14 which you ignored i guess since you dont bring it up or explain to me why this does not go with this passage. though it speaks of what cleanse our conscience how through the SPIRIT. so there is the reference to the SPirit. you just ignored it when i showed you it.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

so here it is with heb 9:14 "How much more then, will the blood of Christ, who THROUGH the eternal SPIRIT offered himself unblemished to God CLEANSE OUR CONSCIENCES from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living GOd." did you see the same words and what cleanses our conscience reference in 1 peter 3:21 WHAT did the water of the flood do to the earth which was full of sin, gave it a rebirth and renewal. Titus 3:5 : he saved us NOT BECAUSE OF RIGHTEOUS THINGS WE HAD DONE, BUT because of his mercy. He saved us THROUGH the washing of rebirth and renewal by the holy SPirit, WHOM he poured out on us generously THROUGH Jesus Christ our saviour. last part of 1 Peter 3:21 "it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" now read rom 5 then 8 then 10:8-13,verse 17.











​

Again you miss the purpose of baptism, which is common amongst Dispensationalists. Remember baptism is the sign of the covenant of God corresponding with the Old Testament sign of circumcision. Someone who refused the sign of the covenant in the OT could not be spiritually circumcised in their heart. Only those who had the outward sign could receive the inward sign.

nope i do not. you do it has NOTHING To do with the gospel message of salvation. and nothing to do with being a sign of the new covenant. read Col 2:13 " when you were did in your sins and in the UNCIRCUMCISION of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. SEE it deals with our sinful nature NOT our sign of a new covenant. your thibnking on Col 2:11-12 is ALL wrong. it speaks of the circumsicions being the putting off of our sinfull nature(as shown in verse 13 and 3:10-12. the baptism part speaks of the SPirit coming into our hearts and living by the SPirit. EPH 4:22-24 Rom 13:14. READ THEM with Col 2:11-12. and as for the last part read rom 4:9-17. it says otherwise.

Your belief that a person does not need the outward sign but yet can still receiving the inward sign is not scriptural. Remember only those who were circumcised in the flesh or under the roof of someone who was circumcised had the privilege of even having their sins forgiven. Only Israel had the privilege of calling themselves the people of God. All nations outside of the covenant people of God were considered heathen. It was to the Covenant people of God that He said,
Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. not to the heathen outside of the covenant.

i did not say that i said the OUTWARD sign is you works. JAMES 2:14-26. it is your walk of life that shows your faith and true belief or not. and there sins were NOT forgiven in the olf covenant. it was HELD over untill Christ SACRIFICE.

Can you show me God's clear command and explanation that the physical sign of the covenant is no longer needed?

ROM 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been JUSTIFIED through FAITH, we have peace with GOd through our Lord Jesus Christ,THROUGH whom we have gained access by FAITH INTO this Grace in which we NOW stand. Acts 15:18 "God, who knows the heart, SHOWED that he accepted them by giving the holy SPirit to them,.." eph 1:13-14 "... having BELIEVEd you were MARKED in him with a SEAL, the PROMISED hol;y SPiirt. whoi is a deposit GUARANTEEING OUR INHERITANCE..."

I don't understand. You disagreed with me saying we do have control over spirit baptism but then you turned around and said that we don't and that God has control. Who is in control of spiritually placing us into the body of Christ? You nor I have control over that. Is believing the magical key to spirit baptism? The devils believe and tremble but they are not spiritually baptized into the body of Christ. Look at Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. It is God's choice not our's.

we do in that we have the choice to believe or not. God is in control in doing the Act of placing us into the body. but we have the choice to believe or accept. YSE believing is the MAGICAL key. acts 15:8 eph 1:13-14. john 3:16 Mark 16:16. But it is TRUE belief that of the HEART which God sees. READ ACTS 15:8. its right there. read rom 10:9. Gods WORK our CHOICE.

1 Peter 3:21 says that eight people were saved by water and then he says the "like figure" is true of baptism. Baptism saves(rescues us from destruction) us by giving us a good conscience toward God. When we are obedient to God we have a good conscience toward Him when we are disobedient we don't.

it says we are SAVED by this baptism. and i have shown scripture above that says we can not be OBEDIANT with out the SPirit in us. so we MUST be saved before we canb be obediant or please God. So it must be of the Spirit which is GOd or his Work. SOOO the only way to be obediant is to have the SPirit only way to get this is to believe in your heart, which in turn cleanses our conscience, or our sinfull nature, we then can please God and do good works which shows our Faith. scripture is given above.

Come on now. All ceremonial blood rites in the Old Testament pointed to the shedding of the blood of Christ. A few posts back I shared the comparison of circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New, both signified the same thing. Circumcision was the sign for the Old but now God requires a sign for the New, which Paul tells us plainly is baptism. Col 2:11-12 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.
Here Paul connects the dots for us. He connects circumcision and baptism. If you want more proof study out the comparisons for yourself.

you should continue to read the rest of the story. and you will see you are mistaken. i all ready explained it above so i wont do it again. read the NEXT verse. shows you what the circumsicion represents.

Well you said before that Christ was the sign, now you are saying that your change in life or the way you act or behave is the sign. There is a lot of confusion over what is the true sign of covenant membership because everyone has taken the Old Testament out of the equation. They treat the Word of God like a patchwork quilt instead of seeing it as a seamless garment, flowing from Old to New. When you compare the OT sign of the Covenant and what it signified and compare it to baptism there is no doubt that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant.

AGIAN he is in you by way of the SPirit. this SPirit clothes you wiht Christ he LEADS your life HE is in CONTROL of your life so yes in a sincve he is the sign. SO it is HIM who changes your life. the old testement showed ISREAL who the saviour was. it was to reveal CHRIST.

You are under the mistaken impression that the sign of the covenant is for a witness to the world but that is not true. The sign is for you alone. Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. The sign is signifying to you that God has taken you out of the world and placed or buried you into His body, the Church. The sign is an obligation to you to live a holy and obedient life toward God. It has nothing to do with the world other than to tell it that it has lost another one.

there is no sign of the covenant as you see it or think it. there cant be even in the old testement read rom 2:26-29

God never has majored on the spiritual and cast out the physical. He has never done that in the history of the Covenant people of God. He always required the physical and the spiritual. There is no place in scripture that tells us that the physical sign of the covenant is no longer needed yet there are many scriptures commanding it.

YET he says it is the SPiritual side that God always sees. he never sees the physical side. only what is in the heart. that is why in Gal 5:22-26 he speaks of what

 

[GLJCA]

I can see no reason or commandment for the water rite of baptism for the Body of Christ today. Yes it was a requirement under "the gospel of the kingdom."

Why did Paul tell Agrippa that he gave the same gospel to Jew and Gentile 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. Same gospel for Jew and Gentile. I think you are missing or ignoring a whole lot of scripture in your explanation.

First of all washings in the OT were far more extensive than just a ceremony for the priesthood. All the OT washings signified one thing, cleansing. We see Naaman being told to dip in the Jordan river to be cleansed from leprosy. We see someone who was considered unclean, whether they had eaten something that died on it's own, or that had touched a dead body, etc., going through ceremonial washing of their body and their clothes to be pronounce clean again. Surely you can see the significance of those washings with baptism today. Paul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins.(Acts 22:16) Washings in the OT placed the unclean person back in right standing with God because being unclean meant that they were cast outside of the people of God.

Acts 19:4-5 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. These people were not candidates for the priesthood they were disciples of Christ that had not yet been baptized with the sign of the New Covenant. Paul baptized them and then they received the Holy Spirit.

Also in Acts 8 when Samaria was evangelized Peter came down and water baptized them and afterward they received the Holy Spirit.

Or how about when Philip preached to the Ethopian eunuch? It says that they went down into the water and Philiip baptized him. Was the Ethopian going into the priesthood? No, he was receiving the sign of the New Covenant.

Wasn't, according to you, the "gospel of the kingdom" the gospel for the Jews only?

Please tell me why was Cornelius, Lydia, the Ethopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, the people of Samaria in Acts 8, and those in the Corinthian church, all baptized in water, since they were Gentiles? Your explanation doesn't hold water, no pun intended.

I find a lot of error in what you have said here, Dispy.

You also said,

The "good news" of the gospel today is not "the kingdom is at hand," and "repent and be baptized," but salvation by "grace through faith" in the cross work of Christ. The Law was nailed to the cross and works are no longer in for salvation to demonstrate that faith.

Yet the Word says, Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
1John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
1John 3:17-19 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels [of compassion] from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
Sounds to me like the Word is saying that if you don't demonstrate your faith by your works then you probably don't have the right faith. The person who does not do good works does not know Christ.

You guys must have forgotten my challenge earlier in this thread. I will give that challenge again.
I challenge those who believe that these three scriptures above, Romans 6:4, 1Cor 12:13, and Gal 3:27 are not speaking of water baptism, to please prove their theory.

It was through the physical outward sign of circumcision that one entered into the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. I maintain that when we are physically baptized in water, the spirit places us into the body of Christ, the Church and that water baptism is the one baptism spoken of in Ephesians. I challenge you to prove me wrong not with speculation but with scriptural evidence.

You see there is no way you can prove that those scriptures are speaking of spirit baptism only, because it isn't in the text. You have to assume and insert that believe into the scripture, because it isn't in the context. The context leans toward water baptism in those verses not spirit. The only baptism that we are commanded to do is water baptism not spirit. Show me scriptural evidence of a command to be spirit baptized?

GLJCA

 

[Dispy]

I can see no reason or commandment for the water rite of baptism for the Body of Christ today. Yes it was a requirement under "the gospel of the kingdom."

Why did Paul tell Agrippa that he gave the same gospel to Jew and Gentile 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. Same gospel for Jew and Gentile. I think you are missing or ignoring a whole lot of scripture in your explanation.

The message that Paul was preaching is a good message in any dispensation. All mankind should repent and turn to go, plus do works to edify their saviour. When Paul first started his ministry he did not have the full knowledge of the ministry. Because of his love for his fellow countrymen, he went to them first and showed them from the OS Scriptures that Jesus was their long promised Messiah. He used the OT Scriptures more then any others in the NT that Jesus was the Christ.

First of all wwashings in the OT were far more extensive than just a ceremony for the priesthood. All the OT washings signified one thing, cleansing. We see Naaman being told to dip in the Jordan river to be cleansed from leprosy. We see someone who was considered unclean, whether they had eaten something that died on it's own, or that had touched a dead body, etc., going through ceremonial washing of their body and their clothes to be pronounce clean again. Surely you can see the significance of those washings with baptism today. Paul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins.(Acts 22:16) Washings in the OT placed the unclean person back in right standing with God because being unclean meant that they were cast outside of the people of God.

Under the Law, in the OT and the gospels, works were required as the vehicle to demonstrate their FAITH. It was just one of the many things that were required under the Law.

Paul was baptized because at the time of his conversion, water baptism was part of the salvation economy at that time. However, you will notice that he received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. It wasn't that way in Acts 2:38. Baptism then was required of the repentant prior to receiving the Holy Spirit.

Yes, washing (baptism) was required in the gospels, and for a specific purpose in the OT.

Acts 19:4-5 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. These people were not candidates for the priesthood they were disciples of Christ that had not yet been baptized with the sign of the New Covenant. Paul baptized them and then they received the Holy Spirit.

Paul, in Acts 19, did not re-baptize those at Ephesus. You are reading that into those passages.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, (What John said) they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Nowhere in those verses does it say that Paul baptized them. They received the Holy Spirit by Paul laying hands on them.

John's baptism was for the remission of sins (Matt. 3:11) John said in that verse that the One that came after him would baptize them with the Holy Ghost. So, those that John baptized did receive the remission of sins. That is why, when Paul asked them if "unto what then were ye baptized?" they answered correctly. Being they had already been baptized for the remission of sins, Why would it have to be done again. Paul's laying on of his hand were all that was necessary. Just as Peter and John did in Acts 8.

Also in Acts 8 when Samaria was evangelized Peter came down and water baptized them and afterward they received the Holy Spirit.

Peter and John did not baptize them. They were water baptize before they ever got there.

Or how about when Philip preached to the Ethopian eunuch? It says that they went down into the water and Philiip baptized him. Was the Ethopian going into the priesthood? No, he was receiving the sign of the New Covenant.

Wasn't, according to you, the "gospel of the kingdom" the gospel for the Jews only?

Please tell me why was Cornelius, Lydia, the Ethopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, the people of Samaria in Acts 8, and those in the Corinthian church, all baptized in water, since they were Gentiles? Your explanation doesn't hold water, no pun intended.

I find a lot of error in what you have said here, Dispy.

Prior to Israel being set aside, for one that was a Gentile and wanted to servea the true and living God of Israel, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place them selves under the Laws of Moses. God never refused anyone, including a Gentile, that earnestly sought after Him. That is why God sent Philip to the Etheopian eunuch, those in Philip to those in Samaria, and Peter to Cornelius. Water baptism was still part of the Jewish economy.

In Paul's early ministry he did baptise some, but that was in his early ministry before he received the full knowledge of the mystery. However, you cannot find one verse of Scripture that says that Paul ever required one to be baptized.

You also said.

The "good news" of the gospel today is not "the kingdom is at hand," and "repent and be baptized," but salvation by "grace through faith" in the cross work of Christ. The Law was nailed to the cross and works are no longer in for salvation to demonstrate that faith.

Yet the Word says, Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
1John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
1John 3:17-19 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels [of compassion] from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
Sounds to me like the Word is saying that if you don't demonstrate your faith by your works then you probably don't have the right faith. The person who does not do good works does not know Christ.

John is writing to those with whom he, Peter and James, agreed, with Paul, to stay with in Galatians 2:9. John is writing to those saved under the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom." The Law was in effect at that time. The 12 were commissioned to preach "the gospel of the kingdom." These believers have an earthly kingdom to look fordward to, and the Law will be in effect in the kingdom age. There will be 12 disciples sitting upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Luke 22:d28-30).

Read what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-10. It is by GRACE through FAITH and not of works. Yes, we are saved unto good works, but our salvation is not dependant upon them. We will be rewarded for our works, that survive the test of fire, at the Judgement seat of Christ 1Cor.3:8-15).

To be continued.

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

 

[Dispy]

You guys must have forgotten my challenge earlier in this thread. I will give that challenge again.
I challenge those who believe that these three scriptures above, Romans 6:4, 1Cor 12:13, and Gal 3:27 are not speaking of water baptism, to please prove their theory.

It was through the physical outward sign of circumcision that one entered into the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. I maintain that when we are physically baptized in water, the spirit places us into the body of Christ, the Church and that water baptism is the one baptism spoken of in Ephesians. I challenge you to prove me wrong not with speculation but with scriptural evidence.

You see there is no way you can prove that those scriptures are speaking of spirit baptism only, because it isn't in the text. You have to assume and insert that believe into the scripture, because it isn't in the context. The context leans toward water baptism in those verses not spirit. The only baptism that we are commanded to do is water baptism not spirit. Show me scriptural evidence of a command to be spirit baptized?

GLJCA

I have responded to you challenge in my post #95. I also posted the same thing in my post #75. I will not do it one more time for you benefit. From post #95:

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 word "baptismos" always, or most always, refers to water baptism, while in fact 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 Christ 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."

Returning to Rom. 6:3,4, we must ask: How are we baptized into Christ? The Apostle gives us a clear answer, couched in the form of a reproof that might well apply more appropriately to the Chruch of our day then to that of his own.

Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?"

We are baptized into Christ, then, by being baptized into His death. This is the great message of Rom. 6.3.

BTW, I never did see a response, or answers to my questions in my post #75 to you.

 

[eph3Nine]

Amen Dispy. "IF" we believe what the scripture SAYS, then its clear that we are NOT baptized into WATER...but identified with HIM (the true meaning of baptism is to be identified WITH something or someone) in His DEATH. When HE died, WE died to our OLD identity in Adam and became NEWLY identified with our NEW identity IN CHRIST...we actually become part of a LIVING ORGANISM referred to as "the church, which is His BODY".

How anyone can diminish the meaning of this awesome occurance by thinking it has to do with WATER is beyond me. Water baptism was REQUIRED for the JEW under the KINGDOM PROGRAM of times PAST...they were the NATION of Priests and this was something they HAD to do.

OUR baptism, the ONE baptism spoken of in Eph 4:5 is done BY the Spirit when He identifies us with Christs death, burial and resurrection and places us into the BODY of Christ...a brand NEW entity that didnt exist before Paul was saved and given the revelation of the MYSTERY.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

There's no historical support for this assertion.

"bapto" is closely represented by the English word "dip" or "drench" (implied in water), and the "-ism" on the end indicates a system of use for the stem "dip [in water]". That system of use implicates the presence of the Spirit of God; and so the Spirit's work in our lives is often referred to by the metaphorical use of the term, "drench".

That's the meaning of the term. "baptismos" didn't just pop up with a modern meaning 2000 years after the fact. It must be referred back to the information we have about First Century usage.

Nebuchadnezzar was "bapted" with dew. He didn't come to identify with dew, he was drenched in it. The Jewish people baptized tables, utensils, beds (Mk 7:4). They didn't come to identify with their furniture, they washed the furniture in water.

 

[Dispy]

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

There's no historical support for this assertion.

"bapto" is closely represented by the English word "dip" or "drench" (implied in water), and the "-ism" on the end indicates a system of use for the stem "dip [in water]". That system of use implicates the presence of the Spirit of God; and so the Spirit's work in our lives is often referred to by the metaphorical use of the term, "drench".

That's the meaning of the term. "baptismos" didn't just pop up with a modern meaning 2000 years after the fact. It must be referred back to the information we have about First Century usage.

Nebuchadnezzar was "bapted" with dew. He didn't come to identify with dew, he was drenched in it. The Jewish people baptized tables, utensils, beds (Mk 7:4). They didn't come to identify with their furniture, they washed the furniture in water.

I do believe the author used the word "baptismos" not "bapto".

1Cor.10:2"And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea:"

How drenched did the children of Israel get when they passed through the sea. Or do you think that got drenched in the cloud?

Jesus said in Matthew 20:22 "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are you able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

I Jesus speaking of His water baptism here or Hid death baptism without water?

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

 

[eph3Nine]

Dispy is correct. The word baptism doesnt always refer to water, but means "to be identified with something". Just as when you see the word "church", it doesn't always refer to we the Body of Christ. Of all the times the word baptism is used in scripture, only a few refer to water.

Obviously Jesus isn't speaking of water when He refers to HIS baptism. He identified Himself with sinful man, so that WE could be identified with Him in His death, burial and resurrection. An awesome exchange if one only takes the time to LOOK!

 

[Dispy]

eph3Nine:
GOOD to see you back! Appreciate your contrabutions.

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

 

[heymikey80]

I do believe the author used the word "baptismos" not "bapto".

1Cor.10:2"And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea:"

How drenched did the children of Israel get when they passed through the sea. Or do you think that got drenched in the cloud?

Jesus said in Matthew 20:22 "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are you able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

I Jesus speaking of His water baptism here or Hid death baptism without water?

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

You've got two examples, one metaphorical, the other associative -- in the latter case they went beneath the surface of the water, but they were miraculously kept dry through it.

There're 91 references to baptism in the New Testament. You have two: one a metaphor, the other connected with water baptism. Please go on with your story. You're going to apply these two verses to all the rest?

Here, here're two of mine for counterpoint:

After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized Jn 3:22-23

Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Ac 22:16
​

The second of yours (from 1 Cor 10) doesn't deny much of anything -- the presence of water, the people going beneath its surface. I don't see a problem there. The quantity of water applied doesn't make baptism a baptism. By the same token you may've been in the presence of the bishop in mass baptisms, and the water may not have hit you. But you've been baptized nevertheless.

In the first, the metaphor, I point out your definition doesn't make sense of it. The point of the metaphor is not that you completely identify with the adversities. The point is that you undergo an adversity that is overwhelming, much as the force of water does when it drenches you or covers you.

"Baptism" has a stem, "bapt-", "drench" and a classic Greek ending, "ism", "system". Taking a word which points quite directly to a drenching-system, and wringing all baptism dry on the basis of its metaphorical use doesn't carry. Greek readers didn't understand it that way at the time; they haven't understood it that way for nearly 2000 years. The Spirit is present as He has instituted water baptism, and His action is illustrated in baptismal metaphor.

Paul continues to baptize and never makes any command to stop baptizing in water. Scripture shows him baptizing people in water in Corinth, Ephesus, and Philippi.