Water baptism

[ByTheSpirit]

Why do I believe Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27 refer to water baptism?

In the New Testament, baptism is listed as several different things. Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), Baptism of fire (linked to the Holy Spirit), Baptism of death (that Jesus spoke of with James and John), and Water Baptism.

Some have made the valid point of water is often represented in a spiritual aspect, or metaphorically. But this is what I'm getting to; Jesus told the disciples in the Great Commission, indeed all of us who believe, to baptize people for discipleship in the name of the Triune God.

Baptize into, that's a key...

What does that mean, into something?

1) It denotes purpose, repentance for remission of sins. (Acts 2:38; 22:16)
2) It denotes communion, unity with. Baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That phrase "the name" relates to all the person is. When a policeman says stop in the name of the law they are referencing the power of the law and all it is. So baptism in the name of Jesus is baptism into who Jesus is, what He is, etc.

Now, in the New Testament, it almost always says what type of baptism is being referred to in the text. When it does not specify, it leaves clues. Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; Col 2:12 have no clues outside of the phrase "into Christ".

So, we must go back to the other places baptism is linked to "the name of Jesus"
Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38; Acts 19:5

All three of those references, it is a PHYSICAL ACT of baptism performed by flesh and blood. This is the clue needed to identify what type of baptism is spoken of by Paul in Romans, Galatians, and Colossians.

Baptism in the name of Jesus is a physical act that is performed by us, Jesus' followers. We cannot baptize someone in the Holy Spirit, only Jesus can do that. We cannot baptize someone in fire (not without killing someone). We cannot baptize someone in death. So we are left with one scriptural form of baptism. Baptism in water.

So anytime you see "baptized into Christ" or any form or varient, it is referring to water baptism.

 

[Frogster]

Can I be united wih Him, without water baptism?



6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

 

[Frogster]

But it is pointing out the INTO, the union with Christ there, they PUT ON Christ and Gal 3:27-28 was proving that they are all in the corporate body, the mystical body, where race does not matter, no Jew or Greek, you missed the point, because you keep seeing through water glasses with a preconceived notion, that it is water.

And col 2 is all so spiritual, circumcision, spiritual raising, etc, but you insist that the baptism word there is natural, totally going against the flow.

Paul used the in him, or with him, about 7 times in Col 2, he was about the 'in him"..union, spirituality...


6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead

See the point now? IN HIM, was the emphasis, like in Rom 6, it is spiritual union, that does not need water.

 

[Frogster]

so long as you don't recognize the well known "in Christ" in Pauline theology, you will always just see water, not the mystical union he speaks of. It is important to understand the foundational belief sytem with Paul, who wrote out of that base and mindset revelation.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I'm not referencing the "in Christ" only... Don't put words in my mouth, read what I put down...

Let me spell it out for your amphibian ears:

When..
the..
text..
says...
BAPTISM...
in...
Christ...

baptism into Christ... BAPTISM in Christ... BAPTISM in Christ...

Baptism.... in... Christ....

it is referencing water baptism...

I didn't say anything about the "in Christ" references that do not include BAPTISM....

So don't even try to twist my words like that...

I thought you were an honorable brother not to do something like that.

 

[Frogster]

I'm not referencing the "in Christ" only... Don't put words in my mouth, read what I put down...

Let me spell it out for your amphibian ears:

When..
the..
text..
says...
BAPTISM...
in...
Christ...

baptism into Christ... BAPTISM in Christ... BAPTISM in Christ...

Baptism.... in... Christ....

it is referencing water baptism...

I didn't say anything about the "in Christ" references that do not include BAPTISM....

So don't even try to twist my words like that...

I thought you were an honorable brother not to do something like that.

but if you bind all of that to water, you mandate water, that is a no no..you ignore the mystical union, that takes no water.

Next you will say we have to be circumcised in the flesh.

 

[Frogster]

see how you're making it into a salvation issue, by fusing and mandating the born again experience of Rom 6 to water baptism?

You are indeed saying we can't be born again, unless we are water baptized, read your posts, it is there..

Bu making it be water in the equation, you did just what i said.

 

[bob96]

You are indeed saying we can't be born again, unless we are water baptized

Frogster, are you saying that because there is an example in the Bible of someone being "born again" without water, then water baptism cannot be a valid way of being born again? Which verse are you referring to?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Frogster, are you saying that because there is an example in the Bible of someone being "born again" without water, then water baptism cannot be a valid way of being born again? Which verse are you referring to?

Actually I don't find a single instance in scripture of someone being born again and not being baptized. The thief on the cross wasn't born again, born again means born of the Spirit, he never received the Spirit...

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Again, I feel it's important to restate what I feel the purpose of baptism is, the role it played in the early church.

It was the means by which those who heard the gospel and decided Jesus was for them and they wanted to follow him to demonstrate that decision.

I think Matthew 28 is pretty clear if a person wants to become a disciple of Christ they must be baptized.

So in today's churches you get an altar call, a sinner's prayer, a "round of applause" for the new convert. In the book of Acts you had water baptism.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Well, Paul also said he did not come to baptize in 1 Cor, couldn't remember who he did baptize, other than a few, and also water (OP title) is not needed to be in the Romans 6 conversion experience. Romans 6, is in fact, the born again description detailed for us.

While a common misconception about I Cor 1, it is nevertheless a misconception.

In I Cor 1, Paul is addressing division within the church. That is the context of I Cor 1.

How does Paul address their division? To what does Paul appeal to put a stop to their divisions?

Because the nature of their division was based on IDENTITY (i.e. "I am of Paul," "I of Apollos," "I of Cephas," etc.), Paul appeals to their TRUE IDENTITY, which is in Christ.

And on what basis does Paul make this appeal? He does so on the basis of Christ's crucifixion and their baptism (v. 13):

"Paul was not crucified for you, was he?"
"Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Paul explicitly explains his purpose for saying what he does about being thankful he didn't baptize more people than he did in verse 15:

"...that no man should say you were baptized in my name."

When Paul declares in verse 17 that "Christ did not send me to baptize" - what is he saying, that baptism is not important? On the contrary - HE JUST APPEALED TO THEIR IDENTITY IN CHRIST ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BAPTISM!

Moreover, and to the issue of the mode of baptism being somehow strictly a Spirit-done thing, Paul is clear that HE DID BAPTIZE people - meaning one human (Paul) actually baptized other humans (household of Stephanas, et. al.).

So how should we understand it when Paul says "Christ did not send me to baptize"? Was Paul being disobedient in baptizing those whom he clearly did baptize? Of course not. Paul actually addresses this issue in chapter 3, verses 5ff. "What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed... I [Paul] planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth."

It's no more difficult than that. Paul's commission from Christ was to plant; Apollos' to water. Neither diminishes the importance of baptism whatsoever.

Indeed, if Paul does anything in this passage (I Cor 1), he elevates the crucial importance of baptism - linking it to our true identities in Christ, for it is in His Name that they were baptized, and it is in His Name that we are baptized - thereby obtaining the common identity in Christ to which Paul appeals in order to stifle division within the church.

And THAT is the lesson we should be taking from I Cor 1 - not that we should be pooh-poohing the importance of baptism.

 

[Frogster]

Frogster, are you saying that because there is an example in the Bible of someone being "born again" without water, then water baptism cannot be a valid way of being born again? Which verse are you referring to?

Let m explain.

Romans 6 is a detailed experience about all that happened at out conversion, by faith. If one makes water baptism essential, as part of the equation of salvation, the born again experience in 6, then he has mandated water babtism, to be saved, for the rom 6 experience to work. In other words, no water, no being saved, because he has made water an essential element in the equation, that is supposed to be all by faith.

If one listens to may view, and sees that it is about being united, in him, then one does not need water, it is all about the spiritual experience, it is all by faith, not by adding a work, as part of our salvation event, detailed in the Rom 6 experience, definition.

One has a work in it, one does not, mine is all by faith, his is adding a work to be saved. Think about it, he says 6 is water, so one can't be raised up, and UNITED, unless he is water baptized.

 

[Frogster]

While a common misconception about I Cor 1, it is nevertheless a misconception.

In I Cor 1, Paul is addressing division within the church. That is the context of I Cor 1.

How does Paul address their division? To what does Paul appeal to put a stop to their divisions?

Because the nature of their division was based on IDENTITY (i.e. "I am of Paul," "I of Apollos," "I of Cephas," etc.), Paul appeals to their TRUE IDENTITY, which is in Christ.

And on what basis does Paul make this appeal? He does so on the basis of Christ's crucifixion and their baptism (v. 13):

"Paul was not crucified for you, was he?"
"Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Paul explicitly explains his purpose for saying what he does about being thankful he didn't baptize more people than he did in verse 15:

"...that no man should say you were baptized in my name."

When Paul declares in verse 17 that "Christ did not send me to baptize" - what is he saying, that baptism is not important? On the contrary - HE JUST APPEALED TO THEIR IDENTITY IN CHRIST ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BAPTISM!

Moreover, and to the issue of the mode of baptism being somehow strictly a Spirit-done thing, Paul is clear that HE DID BAPTIZE people - meaning one human (Paul) actually baptized other humans (household of Stephanas, et. al.).

So how should we understand it when Paul says "Christ did not send me to baptize"? Was Paul being disobedient in baptizing those whom he clearly did baptize? Of course not. Paul actually addresses this issue in chapter 3, verses 5ff. "What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed... I [Paul] planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth."

It's no more difficult than that. Paul's commission from Christ was to plant; Apollos' to water. Neither diminishes the importance of baptism whatsoever.

Indeed, if Paul does anything in this passage (I Cor 1), he elevates the crucial importance of baptism - linking it to our true identities in Christ, for it is in His Name that they were baptized, and it is in His Name that we are baptized - thereby obtaining the common identity in Christ to which Paul appeals in order to stifle division within the church.

And THAT is the lesson we should be taking from I Cor 1 - not that we should be pooh-poohing the importance of baptism.

Others agree that Paul did minimize it.

He preached Christ crucified, he said so right in 1 Cor.

 

[Frogster]

Actually I don't find a single instance in scripture of someone being born again and not being baptized. The thief on the cross wasn't born again, born again means born of the Spirit, he never received the Spirit...

I posted alot of verses that did not mention baptism.

Acts 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.




But the problem is, you're mandating it as a part of the born again experience of Rom 6. You think it is always water every time you see that word, even though I clearly showed the , "in him, union, united, resurrected in him" etc, the heart of Paul's doctrine.

You act like there is soooo much about baptism from Paul, all while you don't see where he does mention it, it is all abut a spiritual event, as you try to fuse a natural event into the equation.


Col 2 is about being raised, circumcised etc, all spiritual, yet somehow baptism there goes natural, in your estimation.

 

[Frogster]

Again, I feel it's important to restate what I feel the purpose of baptism is, the role it played in the early church.

It was the means by which those who heard the gospel and decided Jesus was for them and they wanted to follow him to demonstrate that decision.

I think Matthew 28 is pretty clear if a person wants to become a disciple of Christ they must be baptized.

So in today's churches you get an altar call, a sinner's prayer, a "round of applause" for the new convert. In the book of Acts you had water baptism.

People are welcome to be baptized.

I think someone raised a point here. Were the disciples baptized?

What about where there is serious persecution, does one go out into the public in the middle east, and get baptized if he lives in a very anti anti-Christian area?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I posted alot of verses that did not mention baptism.

Acts 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.




But the problem is, you're mandating it as a part of the born again experience of Rom 6. You think it is always water every time you see that word, even though I clearly showed the , "in him, union, united, resurrected in him" etc, the heart of Paul's doctrine.

You act like there is soooo much about baptism from Paul, all while you don't see where he does mention it, it is all abut a spiritual event, as you try to fuse a natural event into the equation.


Col 2 is about being raised, circumcised etc, all spiritual, yet somehow baptism there goes natural, in your estimation.

Because Colossians 2 mentions baptism specifically as the moment in time when the spiritual circumcision of Christ happens... look it up Colossians 2:12. That passage even specifically says that you are DEAD in the uncircumcision of the flesh (v13). So you can only be alive in God when you circumcise the flesh (the old nature), that is the circumcision of Christ (v11) which happens at baptism (v12).

Colossians 2:11-13 NASB
Colossians 2:11-13New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

 

[Frogster]

Because Colossians 2 mentions baptism specifically as the moment in time when the spiritual circumcision of Christ happens... look it up Colossians 2:12. That passage even specifically says that you are DEAD in the uncircumcision of the flesh (v13). So you can only be alive in God when you circumcise the flesh (the old nature), that is the circumcision of Christ (v11) which happens at baptism (v12).

Colossians 2:11-13 NASB
Colossians 2:11-13New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

red above, then you are saying it only happens in the water, or right as one is coming out..you are binding water into the eauation. The things in Col 2 can and do happen without water.


also, you are saying that a non believer, who is dead, for some reason is being baptized..

there we go again, you mut see that baptism in water is after conversion, unsaved don't get baptized. If they were dead upon baptism, that would mean they were unsaved, unsaved don't get baptized yet. But if you see the death to life as spiritual, non water dependant, Rom 6, and col 2 makes sense.

also you are again saying that we can't have the other things in Col 2, or Rom 6, unless we are in water!

It does not work that way, or else everyone who had all of the good things happen in rom 6, ans col 2 without ware, or way before water baptism, really did not have all of those wonderful things happen.



your formula binds water into something spiritual that happens all of the time, even right now, as we speak, without water.


Are people right now in the Rom 6 experience without being water baptized? yes or no?

 

[Frogster]

Because Colossians 2 mentions baptism specifically as the moment in time when the spiritual circumcision of Christ happens... look it up Colossians 2:12. That passage even specifically says that you are DEAD in the uncircumcision of the flesh (v13). So you can only be alive in God when you circumcise the flesh (the old nature), that is the circumcision of Christ (v11) which happens at baptism (v12).

Colossians 2:11-13 NASB
Colossians 2:11-13New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

one has to convert first, he is then in rom 6, then he can be water baptized, it is simple chronology, you put water first, when it is not even about submersion there, it is about spiritual union, that which happens and does happen without water.

 

[Frogster]

Are people right now in or having the Rom 6 experience without being water baptized? yes or no please?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

People are welcome to be baptized.

I think someone raised a point here. Were the disciples baptized?

What about where there is serious persecution, does one go out into the public in the middle east, and get baptized if he lives in a very anti anti-Christian area?

yes the disciples were baptized