What is the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5? (I have an answer, but I would like input).

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Quintus]

Not sure where you stand. Are you for water baptism still being applicable? Or are you for Spirit baptism being the new way of the New Covenant?

Neither. I'm for trust in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ being the sole basis of the New Covenant. I'm for his death and resurrection being the One Baptism that really matters.

My only reason for posting at all is that Christ's sacrifice seems to get completely overlooked in the heat of factional debate. How can there be factional differences in One Body? We must trust in the fundamental, inescapable fact of Christ's death and Resurrection being the only thing that ultimately matters, and he called it his baptism.

If I were an unbeliever reading some of these threads, I'd be gone before you could see me for dust. The commonest question I have been asked in fifty years is "what's the difference between this church and that?", usually followed by a shrug and dismissal of the whole idea of jumping into such a mess. The body of Christ needs to smarten up before we have to answer to the living God in the not too far distant future.

"What did you do with the resources I left you with?" "What is the state of the vineyard I left you with?" "Why is your lamp flickering: short of oil?" "Do you really love your brothers; do you really love me?" These are the sort of questions the churches should be preparing us to answer because we know they will be asked of us because that was the message in parables about his return.

The mechanics of our water baptisms won't interest him all that much: the Lord looks on the heart not the outward appearance, so make sure that your heart is clean. The reality of the Spirit in our lives really does interest him; however, the Spirit has many ways of acting and we should not tie him down to just the gifts that we think matter. The Spirit blesses us with gifts as he sees fit to glorify Jesus by enabling us to join in his work, and he looks for Spiritual fruits in the lives we live because this too glorifies Jesus. At the end of the day, it's all about Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Quintus]

So the real reality in Romans 6:3-4 is Spirit baptism. It is the only kind that can help us to put to death the old man. It is the only kind of baptism whereby we can say we are dead and freed from sin. Water baptism cannot do such things. It is merely an outward picture and or ritual.

It seems to me we are talking the same reasoning but different language and emphasis.

Many Christians whose hearts have truly turned to the Lord for salvation will still baulk at 'Spirit Baptism' because it means as many different confusing things to different people as water baptism does.

I'll leave it there

 

[Quintus]

As for your statement that there is neither a water baptism or a Spirit baptism: Well, we cannot make the Bible say what we want it to say. Jesus says in Acts of the Apostles 11:16, “John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” You say it is not a baptism in the Holy Ghost and it does not matter. I choose to believe my Bible and not you.

Second thoughts, I didn't actually say there was neither: I said the baptism that ultimately matters is Christ's on the cross/grave. The moment that we lose sight of that we drift into danger.

Perhaps I should have said 'both', but neither is the way into the New Covenant, which is only by grace through faith in the completed work of Christ. The baptisms are, as I explained, consequential on it, and have different purposes which do not conflict but should (note, 'should') lead to the believer glorifying the risen Christ.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[bling]

Right, no doubt about it that Peter told them to repent and be baptized in water in Acts 2, and they were saved. But again, that does not mean God wanted Peter to tell others to be water baptized. It was not something that was highly offensive to God by any means because it was a picture or symbol pointing to the reality of Spirit baptism (When the Spirit comes into our life) when a person receives Jesus Christ. God allowed the church to be like a child and to act with imperfect knowledge. The church was still in it's infancy and it needed to grow and mature like all children do.

Peter’s first sermon goes way beyond the ability of a simple fisherman, even it he had been with Jesus for three years. God showed the group was inspired by the Holy Spirit, with the loud noise and them speaking in tongues they had not learned. It is miraculous how the people were all brought together to hear Peter’s message, but you are telling me the Holy Spirit was not keeping him from not saying the truth.

The first 70 years could be referred to as the infant stage of the church, so why couldn’t someone just say anything in the New Testament was wrong for today?

Tell me other NT teaching which is wrong?

The Holy Spirit baptism did not happen until Pentecost for all believers. So when that happened, that is how they were able to dispense the Holy Spirit. It was not the water that got them into the Spirit because we know that Cornelius and his household received the Spirit without any water.

How did they: “dispense the Holy Spirit” God/Christ/Spirit dispenses the Spirit. The apostle could lay hands on people and they could receive a miraculous portion of the Spirit, but non-apostle Christians water baptize people.

I am sure there are Greek scholars who would disagree with you. The 47 KJB translators wrote it in such a way in English that leads us to believe that verse 5 flows into verse 6 without any gap of time. Verse 5 is what action was taking place, and verse 6 is the details of that action. Surely you don't know more than the 47 translators of the KJB. Besides that, we have other verses that tell us that Spirit baptism is the new form of baptism for the New Covenant. It took the Jewish apostles time to come to this knowledge via by the apostle Paul.

Either the scholars use a period between Acts 5 and 6 or they use a conjunction “and” between 5 and 6. If you study the use of conjunctions in many language including the Greek and do not tie yourself to modern American English you would know a conjunction separate two different actions and was not used to describe the same action two ways. We might say a person is “smart and intelligent” with smart and intelligent have the same meaning, but that was not done in the Greek and other languages. This is part of the reason modern day Greek scholars would use a period between two actions and drop the “and” since today we do not keep that rule in our writings.

Lead me to some scholars teaching this?

You say: “It took the Jewish apostles time to come to this knowledge via by the apostle Paul”.

John 13:17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you…20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

…26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

The Apostles are not going through some “learning process”.

 

[Quintus]

Absolutely. Christ sent the Spirit to those who trust in him. I wouldn't be without him. Clearly this is a spiritual matter and part of the new life in Christ and part of the mechanism of salvation. But I will never take my eyes off the root of my faith which Jesus described as his baptism. I think I owe it to him to take the same view as he did of this central event of history.

You cannot conceive of how he descended to the dead for three days and three nights and preached to the prisoners in chains as Peter said and then rose again on the Third Day without realising that this salvation is a spiritual matter and that spiritual works and events will be required to see it through in individual lives and the whole earth. But never do I see the Holy Spirit pushing himself to the front of the queue in front of Jesus, always he promotes the Saviour.

So I say "he was baptized in his own blood for me". That's how he has taught me to see my salvation. When I was baptized into Christ it was his blood that washed me. When this life is over, it will be the washing of his blood that is the hope to which I cling. This of course also is a spiritual matter. Being made alive in the spirit is a spiritual matter.

But, please, Christ himself saw his death/resurrection as the central point of history, the culmination of his work on earth which would set him free to do greater things through the Spirit. Please, readers, please see his unique baptism as the One Baptism of all believers. Luke 12 v50.

(BTY, please don't tell me the next verses in Luke justify us all splitting up and falling out! )

And now I am tired and must go to bed. Have a nice day over there in the west!

Quintus

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Absolutely. Christ sent the Spirit to those who trust in him. I wouldn't be without him. Clearly this is a spiritual matter and part of the new life in Christ and part of the mechanism of salvation. But I will never take my eyes off the root of my faith which Jesus described as his baptism. I think I owe it to him to take the same view as he did of this central event of history.

You cannot conceive of how he descended to the dead for three days and three nights and preached to the prisoners in chains as Peter said and then rose again on the Third Day without realising that this salvation is a spiritual matter and that spiritual works and events will be required to see it through in individual lives and the whole earth. But never do I see the Holy Spirit pushing himself to the front of the queue in front of Jesus, always he promotes the Saviour.

So I say "he was baptized in his own blood for me". That's how he has taught me to see my salvation. When I was baptized into Christ it was his blood that washed me. When this life is over, it will be the washing of his blood that is the hope to which I cling. This of course also is a spiritual matter. Being made alive in the spirit is a spiritual matter.

But, please, Christ himself saw his death/resurrection as the central point of history, the culmination of his work on earth which would set him free to do greater things through the Spirit. Please, readers, please see his unique baptism as the One Baptism of all believers. Luke 12 v50.

(BTY, please don't tell me the next verses in Luke justify us all splitting up and falling out! )

And now I am tired and must go to bed. Have a nice day over there in the west!

Quintus

Nowhere am I elevating the Spirit over Jesus Christ and what He has done for us. After we are saved by God's grace, we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Possessing the Holy Spirit is a part of salvation. For it is written: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (Romans 8:9).

You speak of the blood of Christ: But by the words you use, it does not sound like you understand 1 John 1:7. 1 John 1:7 basically says if we walk in the light as He is in the light, ... the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. What is walking in the light? 1 John 2:9-11 gives us the answer by indirect wording in that to “walk in the light” = to love our brother. So we must love our brother in order for the blood of Jesus to cleanse ourselves from all sin. For 1 John 3:15 says that if we hate our brother we are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. So no. It doesn't sound like salvation is in the way you describe it. There is more to salvation than God's grace and or believing alone in Jesus for salvation. We need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[Quintus]

There is more to salvation than God's grace and or believing alone in Jesus for salvation. We need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Quite. Was it not James (chapter 2) who stressed the importance of what you do in life as the working out of faith? I do agree, and now I have to do some works elsewhere. Bye

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Quite. Was it not James (chapter 2) who stressed the importance of what you do in life as the working out of faith? I do agree, and now I have to do some works elsewhere. Bye

Actually Paul said work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). James talked about how faith without works is dead (James 2:17), and how we are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). For even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). For even Paul said that one can deny God by a lack of works (Titus 1:16). Granted, we need to first be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus without the deeds of the Law (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Romans 4:3-5) (Titus 3:5). But after we are saved by the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, the gospel calls us to the truth that says.... “God has chosen us to salvation through Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). For without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). This is evident if one reads Matthew 13:41-42. For it tells us that a believer can be in Christ's kingdom and then later cast out into the furnace of fire at the judgment on account of their justifying sin. For John 12:48 says that if we do not receive the words of Jesus, those very words will judge us on the last day. What words of Jesus are Christians not accepting today? Oh, words like.... Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 9:62, Luke 10:25-28, etc.

 

[bling]

Why did Paul only baptize a few? Was it because Paul prophetically could see through the corridors of time and see in the future the situation that the Corinthian believers would be divisive?

In retrospect: While Paul was thankful to God that he only baptized a few in relation to the Corinthian situation of them being divisive is true, it does not undo what 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 says. Paul says that he was not sent to baptize and he only baptized two people, and one household. Again, Paul tells us to follow his example just as Christ is his example (1 Corinthians 11:1). This knowledge of Spirit baptism being the only one and true baptism that came to Paul must have came to him after he baptized two people and one household. Why? Well, Paul says Christ is his example in 1 Corinthians 11:1 and yet Christ did not water baptize anyone. However, our Lord did baptize believers into the Holy Ghost, though. This is something that happens when we preach the gospel. For when Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and his household, the Holy Spirit fell upon them (i.e. They were baptized into the Spirit).




I am sure many have been water baptized in the beginning of the early church, but it was imposed upon them until the time of reformation (Hebrews 9:10) (Note: Again, the word “washings” in the Greek is “baptismos.”). The question is: When was the reformation? While the New Covenant officially began with Christ's death upon the cross, the disciples had no understanding of the cross fully and neither did they understand the resurrection yet. One could say the reformation was the cross, and from God's perspective, this may be true because God did end all of the Old Covenant ceremonial laws. But for man to catch up with God's understanding on that is another matter. Remember, the Gentiles were included in God's plan of salvation from even the Great Commission, but I don't believe the disciples fully understood that yet because of Cornelius and Peter explaining to the other Jewish believers in how the Gentiles are now included. So the disciples misunderstood Jesus in regards to the Great Commission when Jesus first gave those words to them to Go and teach all nations. They were most likely thinking to Go and teach all Jews in all nations. So if they misunderstood this aspect of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, then what else were they misunderstanding? I believe they misunderstood the new baptism that God was trying to tell them. Jesus said John baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Peter still went back to that old water baptism that John did but he tried to Christianize it. Granted, I believe God is patient and he allows his people to learn and grow in their own timing on things. The church was still in it's infancy. I believe based on the context of Hebrews 9 (with Israel being the topic of conversation), that the time of reformation could also be the destruction of the temple in 70AD. By this time, Paul's teachings would have been made clear to many believers.



Again, they traveled two by two. Paul did not have an army of believers at his side to baptize many.



Then I am glad to God that I had been water baptized. Although back then I seen baptism in the same way you do (with a picture or symbol of dying to yourself and rising again), I was baptized in a church that believes in Eternal Security or Belief Alone-ism (Which is something I now find to be extremely unbiblical and immoral). Should I be water baptized again if they were not teaching a correct view on sin and salvation from the Bible? Surely not because water baptism is no longer necessary. For Jesus said, “John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts of the Apostles 11:16). Jesus did not say, “John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost and also be baptized in my name in water.”



This was still the time of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant did not even begin officially until Christ's death upon the cross. Yet, even after the New Covenant began, it took time for God's people to learn and grow in understanding the New Covenant ways.



Here is one:

“And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.” (Luke 9:54-56).​

And here are a few more (if that is not convincing):

1. When Jesus warned against “the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees” his disciples thought he was talking about literal bread, but he was talking about “the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:5-12; cf. Mk. 8:14-21).
2. After Jesus predicted that he must suffer many things and be killed, Peter rebuked him because he misunderstood what it meant for Jesus to be the Messiah (Mk. 8:31-33).
3. Peter, James, and John didn’t understand what Jesus meant by “rising from the dead” (Mk. 9:9-10).
4. Jesus said to his disciples, “‘The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.’ But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it” (Mk. 9:31-32; cf Lk. 9:43-45).
5. Jesus told his disciples, “’We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.’ The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about” (Lk. 18:31-34).
6. Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword, they responded “Look, here are two swords.” Jesus replied, “That’s enough!” Then when one of them used his sword to cut off the servant’s ear, Jesus said, “No more of this!” then he healed the man’s ear (Lk. 22:36, 49-51). The context and Jesus’ entire life shows that he didn’t mean for his disciples to literally use their swords in defending him.
7. After Jesus’ death, two of his followers said, “we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Lk. 24:21). They were thinking that he was going to free Israel from Roman domination. They misunderstood his mission.
8. The disciples thought Jesus was talking about literal food, but he was talking about his Father’s work (Jn. 4:31-34).
9. Martha thought Jesus’ statement “Your brother will rise again” referred to “the resurrection at the last day,” but Jesus raised Lazarus shortly afterwards (Jn. 11:23-44).
10. None of the disciples understood why Jesus told Judas, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” They thought Judas needed to buy something for the festival or give something to the poor (Jn. 13:28-30).
11. The disciples didn’t understand Jesus’ statement, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me.” They kept asking, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We don’t understand what he is saying” (Jn. 16:16-18).
12. The book of John ends with a final misunderstanding. Responding to Peter’s question, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus says, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Then John states that Jesus’ words caused a rumor to spread among the believers. Think about this: Jesus has risen from the dead, John is at the end of his Gospel, and Jesus’ words are still being misunderstood. So John attempts to dispel the rumor with these words: “But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?’” (Jn. 21:22-23).

Source used:
Misunderstanding Jesus - BibleBridge Bible Study Lessons



When men of God make mistakes, then they are to blame and not God (obviously). Even after the cross, there were misunderstandings going on.

Paul had to rebuke Peter for his trying to get the Gentiles to live as the Jews do (See: Galatians 2:11-14). Paul was later peer pressured by the Jewish Christian elders to go through with an OT ritual rite that involved an animal sacrifice within the Jewish temple (See: Acts of the Apostles 21:17-36).

Wow! I fully agree that before Christ’s full replacement came to the 12 the indwelling Holy Spirit which was before Pentecost this group was almost clueless about the Kingdom and what it was really like. I am only referring to the Church Age, the Christian Dispensation. What those 12 said and did before the indwelling Holy Spirit we can take with a grain of salt.

Yes, Peter did make a mistake in moving away from the Gentiles when some from James came to join them, but Paul jumped up and did not lead him away to teach him the way of the Lord more clearly, but confronted Peter publicly because this is something Peter knew to do. Peter like all of us can quench the Spirit and go it alone but we get in trouble quickly. Peter did not write teach what he did as being right or allowed in God’s sight. Baptism is never said to be wrong to do and we have lots of examples of it being right to do. Paul just said one time it was good he did not baptize more in Corinth and did not sy baptism itself was wrong. On his travels he did not convert hundreds per day, but taught over time converting people over time so those with him could do the baptizing.

 

[bling]

OK

 

[All Becomes New]

If you are going to throw out water baptism from the faith, then a whole lot of other things are going to have to go as well since our culture is different from the culture of the first century.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[All Becomes New]

I didn't decide to throw out water baptism based upon my own way of thinking. I actually was in support of water baptism at one time and I have even been water baptized before. The heart of the matter comes down to....

“What does God's Word say?”​

I have given Scriptural support that the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5 is Spirit baptism in post #2.

The problem: it ignores the great commission. Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, not His disciples.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….