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

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Butterball1]

Yet, the Ephesians believers only knew of John's water baptism and this did not appear to help them. Paul laid his hands on them and they were baptized into the Holy Spirit (See: Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7).

Not all, just some of those Ephesians were baptized with John's baptism which had already expired at that time therefore was an invalid baptism having been replaced by Christ's water baptism of the great commission. Therefore Paul baptized them "in the name of the Lord Jesus". This baptism in the name of Jesus is the same baptism of Acts 2:38 which is also in the name of Jesus and the same baptism of the great commission which is also the name of Jesus....human administered water baptism. Water baptism Peter commanded in Acts of the APostles 10:47-48 was in the name of the Lord.

Nowhere ever is baptism with the Holy Spirit said to be "in the name of the Lord Jesus".

---from Matthew 11:3 just the Lord would baptize men with the Holy Spirit therefore Paul nor anyone today can baptize with the Holy SPirit. Yet Paul and men today can adminsister water baptism.

---the only 2 places in the NT where the Lord baptized men with the Holy Spirit is the Apostles (Jews) Acts 2 and Cornelius (Gentile) Acts 10 thereby having "all flesh" Jew and Gentile baptized with the HS fulfilling Joel's prophecy about baptism with the HS meaning that baptism ceased in Acts 10.

---water baptism was commanded, Acts 10:47-48. One can obey that command by obediently submitting himself to being water baptized. Baptism with the HS was never commanded but only a promise made to the Apostles Acts 1:1-5. It's not possible for me to obey a promise not made to me. If baptism with the HS was commanded how do I obey that command? That is beyond my control for I cannot make the Lord baptize me with the HS. Therefore if I have not been baptized with the HS it is solely the fault and failure of the Lord. Yet if I do not obey the command to submit myself (something that is my control) to water baptism then all culpability for not being water baptized is upon myself and not the Lord. If the baptism of the new birth (John 3:5) is baptism with the HS then whose fault is it Nicodemus had not been born again? Cannot be Nicodemus fault for that was out of his control. Yet being water baptized with John's baptism was in his and other Pharisees control and by their rejection of it they condemned themselves, Luke 7:30.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Mr. M]

Christ is the head of the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18). So if we are baptized into Christ's death in water baptism as you say, then we are one with Christ. This means we are united to Him, and if so, then we are one with the body of Christ and so trying to be united to the body of Christ by one Spirit in Spirit baptism is redundant.

You are making it redundant by claiming that there is one baptism. The believers in Ephesus had all
been baptized, but had not even heard of the Holy Spirit baptism. Then Paul laid hands on them...
Two baptisms: baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin.
Holy Spirit baptism to serve the Lord and in His Body.
If Paul had never reached Ephesus, and all the believers there had been slaughtered by
Roman legions, would they have been saved?
You are assuming they were united to the Body Of Christ with water baptism, but could they
minister in the Holy Spirit without the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God
calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
It is also redundant to say...
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
...if this is Spirit baptism.
This instruction is to baptize all disciples, and is water baptism. You keep saying that
Peter and the apostles were so hazy on these instructions and didn't grasp spirit
baptism. The only thing they needed clarity on was that "go into all nations" included
the gentiles, and not just "the lost sheep of Israel", which Jesus is quoted as saying, and they
clearly understood to only mean the dispersion.
You insist that Spirit baptism is the one baptism, but that water baptism is merely symbolic.
I disagree, they have a totally different significance in the narratives.

For the disciples did not fully understand Christ's death and resurrection before the cross. So the apostles had to grow in their learning. I believe this to be the case with baptism, as well.

You are free to believe what you want, but this is faulty reasoning. You cannot support uncertainty concerning baptism by citing their misunderstandings about the resurrection, or the Lord's plans
for the gentiles. You still have not acknowledged the weeks the Lord spent instructing them, right up
until He ascended, when He told them to tarry in Jerusalem. To think they were confused about the
most elemental matters of the Gospel is to say that the Lord failed to instruct them on what He expected,
even after the resurrection, and He breathed the Holy Spirit on them once their hearts were no longer
hardened by their unbelief in the resurrection. All this because Paul referred to the Spirit of Messiah
uniting us all in One Body, one Spirit, and One baptism. How could water baptism unite a believer to
the Body? It could not, hence the events at Ephesus. Once they received the Holy Spirit, the Gospel
completely prevailed over the entire region.

Acts 19:
10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus,
both Jews and Greeks.
20 So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed.

I mean, I get it. You want that nice picture to be Christ being buried with us in water baptism, and that we are raised in Spirit baptism (while we are performing water baptism).

I did not say this, don't be condescending. Water baptism is a burial of the old man, and a "resurrection"
coming up from being submerged into newness of life. I am not thinking of anyone being water baptized and immediately receiving the Spirit except Christ.
Receiving the seal of the Spirit, or the down payment guaranteeing our inheritance, as Paul called it,
is no more the baptism in the Holy Spirit than Jesus breathing on the disciples and saying "receive the Holy Spirit".
To be instructed to tarry until you are "endued with power from on high" is not required for salvation.
It is an absolute necessity to minister and serve Our Master. 1 Corinthians 12:3

A new convert receiving water baptism is not endued with power, they have not even been ordained
to serve the Body of Christ. Sheep don't have to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Pastors, Teachers, Ministers of Help, healing miracles, etc..all require the power from on High.
To not see two baptisms is to not see the difference between salvation and stewardship.
Read Acts 19 and all that we are told about what the Holy Spirit did through them at Ephesus
[numbered as 12 men in the narrative] and see that church was empowered.
Are you not seeing the clear difference between what manifested at Corinth (Acts 18), and how
equipped the brethren at Ephesus in Acts 19 to receive the instruction given in the epistle to them.
The doctrine found in the letter to the Ephesians is very unique and advanced.
I believe they understood what Paul was saying, because he stayed with them for two years,
and they witnessed the power of the Holy Spirit manifesting.
11 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul. [At Ephesus].
I also believe that the apostles, having been discipled by Christ after the resurrection during
the period between Passover and Pentecost were up to speed to understand the gospel of salvation.
Too much of your position depends on assuming otherwise. I am not going to assume the apostles
didn't understand as well as you, so that I can accept your position.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Butterball1]

Why didn't the Spirit intercede to stop Peter from teaching the Gentiles to live as the Jews?
Why did not the Spirit not stop Paul in partaking in an OT ritual in Acts of the Apostles 21?

Had nothing to do with inspirational error, but personal choices they made. Peter denied Christ, that was wrong but it was done by his personal choice not by inspiration. You can fault uninspired personal choices but not inspired revelation.

Water baptism is not a matter of personal choice made by the Apostles but a matter of doctrine. Was the eunuch lost for having been water baptized rather then being baptized with the HS?

If so, why would the Spirit or Phillip let the eunuch go on his way rejoicing letting the eunuch wrongly think he was saved when in reality he was not?

Was the Spirit wrong for not 'spirit baptizing' the eunuch Himself? Was the SPirit wrong for sending Phillip to water baptize the eunuch? Will you attack the Spirit and accuse Him of being wrong?

You are doing nothing more than attacking inspiration to promote your peronal thelogical philosophy.

And Peter did not understand that water baptism had ended yet. Only Paul appeared to have known this teaching and he was trying to get others caught up to speed when he did learn of this truth.

WOW!!! Attacking an Apostle over matter of inspired doctrine simply because it does not fit your thological philosophies!! The inspired Bible writers had it all wrong and you've got it all right.

Not at all. It shows that men of God can sometimes be flawed in their understanding on the things of God despite God using them. In other words, it would be like trying to teach a child everything in life all at once. Sometimes a child has to just simply grow and learn over time before they mature as an adult.

The inspired writers were not wrong about doctrine they wrote down, may have been wrong on their own personal ideas. If they were wrong on what they inspirationally wrote about baptism then as far as we know they could be wrong on everything they wrote. If they wrote something you personally agree with you will not ataack them. But if they wrote soemthing you do not agree with you do attack. Is they how it works?
What if a man and women are in an adulterous, polygamous relationship/marriage. They do not like what inspired Bible writers wrote about marriage, polygamy, adultery. After all if they were wrong about water baptism they can be wrong about other things also. Then this adulterous couple can conveniently declare the inspired BIble writers "misunderstood" and therefore were wrong but they have it right about adultery.

If you can get away with it, then ANYBODY can get away with attacking inspiration.

But we see that some of them came around and they learned from their mistakes.
This is obvious with them not understanding the death and resurrection of Christ before the cross.
This is obvious in Peter being rebuked by Paul for trying to compel Gentiles to live as the Jews do.
This is obvious in that the apostles wanted to go back to the Old Law involving an animal sacrifice in Acts of the Apostles 21. We have to rightly divide and take what is true in what they taught so as to apply it today. For example: Head coverings for women is not something we see too much in our culture. Yet, this issue is spoken about in the New Testament.

...and you continue to accuse OTHERS, INSPIRED BIBLE writers of making mistakes but you are 100% correct. We should all throw our fallible BIbles away and listen to you.

By the way, you have not even come close to proving they were inspirationally wrong. I have seen you do nothing more than ASSUME the idea of SPirit baptism into various verses while giving no proof at all. Your only "proof" is accusing inspiration being wrong and you being right.

Oh, and no. I don't just get to pick and choose when the disciples may be wrong about something. The Word of God tells me when they made a mistake or had a false misunderstanding, etc.; This was not something that colored what other things that God wanted them to know. There was a reason why it took time for them to learn the truth in the way that they did. For why didn't Jesus just force the knowledge of why He had to go to the cross and be risen upon His disciples before the cross? He could have just waved his hand and said, “Know the truth.” and they could have known instantly. But they had to learn and grow in God's timing. Why? Only God knows why? Only he can see the greater picture.

I do not see where the Bible says inspired BIble writers were inspirational worng about doctrinal issues as water baptism. If they were wrong about doctrinal error which they wrote down, then that makes the HS doctrinally wrong in the inspirational words He gave those BIble writers to write down.

Your argument is not based upon anything factual at all but just your biased opinion they were wrong about inspired doctrine.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Mr. M]

If water baptism helps you to be baptized into Christ's death, and if water baptism is what helps you to put on Christ, then why did Paul appear to speak against water baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:17? He said he only baptized two people, and one household (See: 1 Corinthians 1:14-16). If water baptism is as important as you say, then Paul should have been water baptizing tons of people, but this is not the reality of what we see in Scripture. So you are faced with a contradiction.

I am most certainly not dealing in contradictions. Paul acknowledges that the Corinthians received
water baptism, although only a few by his hand. All this means is that who performs the baptism
is not a critical issue. Jesus had his disciples baptizing at Aenon. You interpret that to mean that
He had some aversion to water baptism. How well do you understand people? If Jesus was baptizing,
everyone would have wanted to be baptized by Him. If Paul was baptizing, everyone would have wanted
him to perform the rite. Stay in context.
1 Corinthians 1:
12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,”
or “I am of Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord
gave to each one?
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

No. Once again, I am just being faced with assumptions. Your interpretation is incorrect.
Water baptism is essential, who performs the baptism is clearly not, which is why Paul had
no obligation to spend time water baptizing "tons of people". You overlook the obvious point
of his words, I am here to preach and teach the Gospel. Even as the apostles chose 7 men
for administrative duties so that they could focus on ministering the word and prayer.
As you know, Paul was very committed to prayer also. You would have him baptizing tons of people.
Your expectations would be wrong.
Some institutions may require special qualifications for baptism. I baptized both of my children, but
not until they were old enough to understand the significance of giving their life to Jesus. We did a
thorough Bible study and they were zealous to move forward, even as I was at the same age of 12.
If anyone has a problem with that, they will have to just get over themselves.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Butterball1]

At one point, the baptism of the Holy Ghost was a simultaneous experience with water baptism (Acts of the Apostles 2:38), of which we see the same thing happen with our Lord's baptism (See: Matthew 3:16-17); Yet, on the other hand, we see Spirit baptism to be an exclusive experience alone which came upon the apostles at Pentecost (Acts of the Apostles 2:1-12) and those in Cornelius' house (Acts of the Apostles 10:44), and later with the believers at Ephesus (Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7).

Now, some at this point may want to bring up Romans 6:3-4:

However, in Romans 6:3-4: I believe Paul was pointing to the greater reality (Spirit baptism) when the Roman believers were being water baptized (a picture or symbol of the greater reality). Paul was not telling any Roman believers to be water baptized, but he was merely giving an account of the simultaneous experience of “Holy Spirit baptism / Water baptism” within their past. The new way was to be Holy Spirit baptism alone because if it was not then Paul would have boasted in water baptizing a lot more people instead of just two people, and one household (1 Corinthians 1:14-16).

The baptism is Romans 6:4 is a baptism where there is a literal "burial" from which one is literally "raised up from". A clear reference to water baptism where there is a literal burial in water from which one is raised up from, resurrected. Once again you ASSUME the idea of spirit baptism into the text. If Rom 6 was some figurative spirit baptism then one would be "buried" in the Spirit but then "raised up from" the spirit therefore not maintain the Spirit which they claim to have.

Water baptism has been commanded (Acts of the APostles 10:47-48).
We know from Romans 6:17-18 those Romans obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine THEN they were freed from sin. Obedience came BEFORE justification.

What was that "form of doctrine" which they obeyed? From Romans 6:7 one must become "dead" in order to be freed from sin:

Rom 6:17-18----------obey from the heart that form of doctrine>>>>>>>>>>freed from sin
Romans 6:7---------------------------dead>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>freed from sin

So obeying must cause a person to become "dead". What was it they obeyed that caused a death? When one is water baptized per Romans 6 the old man of sin DIES, he is "buried" in a watery grave where one is then "raised up-resurrected from" that watery grave to walk in newness of life. Water baptism therefore is that form of doctrine which they obeyed. Inspired doctrine came to the Bible writers from the HS and the HS is NOT wrong when it comes to matters of doctrine.

Men can obey the command to be water baptized but not obey in being 'spirit baptized' because baptism with the HS was NEVER commanded to anyone but a promise made only to the Apostles in Acts of the Apostles 1:1-5. Men can justly held accountable then for not obeying in being water baptized. But since only the Lord baptized with the HS, Matthew 3:11, then it can only be the fault and failure of the Lord for those who have not been baptized with the HS.

 

[Mr. M]

Also, Hebrews 9:10 says: “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”
The word “washings” is baptismos.
So baptisms (washings) was imposed on them until the time of reformation. This would be when Paul and others teaching about the truth about Spirit baptism.

The context of Hebrews 9 is the ritual requirements of the Levitical priesthood, which the writer
argues has been done away with in Christ. The rituals of the priesthood are described as symbolic,
and no longer relevant to "ministering in the sanctuary", which requires a clear conscience.
9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—
To use this in a discussion of water baptism in the N.T. just because the author used baptismos to
describe the actions of the priests who prepared themselves to offer gifts and sacrifices is way out
of context. The conscience is the context.

1 Peter 3:21. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from
the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Water baptism for the remission of sin pertains to the conscience.
Spirit baptism pertains to being grafted in to the Body of Christ.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Mr. M]

So if Paul's ministry focus was to not baptize, then was somebody else baptizing them? Sometimes Paul only traveled with one other guy. So that would be a difficult burden to lay upon one other guy.

Do you really feel that you are making a point by idle speculation?
Why does it matter who was baptizing?
Do you feel that some special qualifications were needed for water baptism?
Jesus's disciples were baptizing. What's the big deal?
Isn't this the same men who you are saying lacked understanding of baptism?

So this shows that he did water baptize at one time. But it most not have been that important as you say it does because he said he was not sent baptize others but to preach the gospel. Yet, the apostles were sent to baptize others. Yet, Paul did baptize others.

Paul not baptizing says nothing in regard to its importance.
If I offered to assist a master gardener, and he assigned me the task of watering,
Does that make watering the garden unimportant?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Butterball1]

Nowhere did I say otherwise. I believe the Scriptures of that record that event are inspired, but Peter's choice to deny the Lord was not inspired (of course). Who would even say that?

Peter denying the Lord was not by inspiration but that event is recorded in inspiration. But the inspiration the HS gave to Bible writers about water baptism is inspired, a matter of doctrine. IF the Aposltes were wrong about water baptism, so was the HS.

A person needs to have Spirit baptism in order to be saved. It is generally a part of receiving the gospel and Jesus Christ. We see this happen with Cornelius and his household, and water baptism was not necessary for them to be baptized into the Spirit.

No one was ever told or commanded to be baptized with the HS as they were with water baptism Acts 10:47-48. The command to be water baptized as given by Peter in Acts 10:47-48 was inspired by the HS, not an erroneous personal opinion of Peter.

Cornelius was COMMANDED to be water baptized, the command made water baptism a necessity if for no other reason.
--no verse says Cornelius would be saved by being baptized with the HS
--Cornelius was to send for Peter and Peter would tell Cornelius "what thou oughtest to do" Acts 10:6
--Acts 11:14 says Cornelius would be saved by "words" Peter would tell him, not saved by being baptized with the HS
--those "words" that save is the gospel of Christ that included the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord. Which is the same water baptsim of Acts 2:38 that was for remission of sins in the name of the Lord. Therefore what Cornelius "oughtest to do" was submit to the command to be water baptized.

Again, Philip himself was not aware that Holy Spirit baptism was to replace water baptism yet. Water baptism was just something they did as the outer picture that pointed to the greater reality of being Spirit baptized.

More assumptions. Nowhere after Acts 8 did the Spirit replace water baptism with spirit baptism. Water baptism still being commanded by the Spirit in Acts 10.

In Acts 15 the Apostles met to discuss whether the Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved, Acts of the Apostles 15:1. During this meeting Peter said "we (Jews) believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)", Acts of the Apostles 15:11

So the Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved in the like manner way as the Jews were in Acts 2. That like manner way was the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for remission of sins..
Acts 2:38 = Acts 10:47-48. Only the Aposltes in Acts 2 were baptized with the HS, not any one else. So baptism with the HS cannot be the like manner way Jews and Gentiles are saved.

The Aposltes in Acts 2 were not baptized with the HS in order to be saved for they all ready were in a saved state with Christ. So baptism with the HS had nothing to do with their perosnal salvation has it had nothing to do with Cornelius personal salvation.

People today are saved is that same manner, no where has the HS ever change it.

Okay, these kinds of questions are not good, brother. The Spirit is never wrong ever. So to ask such hypothetical questions can lead to my own condemnation by your questions (which is not good). I would not want to be the cause so as to lead another to speak bad words against the Holy Spirit, friend.

The HS is never wrong and was not wrong when He had Peter by inspiration to command water baptism in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47-48. THe HS was not wrong in having Phillip water baptize the eunuch. Those who are wrong then are the ones trying to undermine the fact water baptism is essential to one being saved.

Anyways, I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where the Holy Spirit sent Philip to water baptize the Ethiopian eunuch. I do see in the Scriptures about how the Holy Spirit telling Philip to go to the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch, though.

THe SPirit did send Phillip to teach the eunuch and water baptize him. Phillip "preached Jesus" after which the eunuch requested to be water baptized. Hence preaching Jesus includes preaching water baptism. Again if water baptism is all wrong then why didn't the Spirit 'spirit baptize" the eunuch, no need for Phillip.

Not at all. If water baptism truly helps a person to put on Christ, and if water baptism truly helps us to be baptized into his death, then why did Paul only baptize two people, and only one household? (See: 1 Corinthians 1:14-16). Why did Paul say that he came not to baptize if such were the case? (See: 1 Corinthians 1:17).

Because there was division among the congregation at Corinth. Instead of all being "OF" Christ as they should some were following the eprson who had baptized thus some were saying they were "OF" Paul or "OF" Cephas or "OF" Apollos. Therefore Paul did not personally baptize many at Corith "lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name". Obviously Paul baptized few for he did npt want those Corinthians accusing him of making his own disciples. Nowhere does the text says "baptism" the noun is not part of the gospel,that idea is assumed into the text. As I showed in another post, what Paulsays in 1 Corithians 1:13 is used to heal the dividsion in getting all to be OF CHrist and that included the necessity of being baptized into the name of Christ thereby making baptism essential to being saved/of CHrist. This baptism in the name of Christ is the same water baptism Peter commanded by inspiration in Acts 10:47-48.

1 Corinthians 6:11 "And such were some of you: but ye are washed..." Washed refers to having been water baptized. It is in the middle voice meaning "you had yourselves washed" meaning they willingly obeyed, submitted themselves to the command to be water baptized...not passibely baptized with the SPirit against their will. Again, no one was ever commanded to be baptized with the HS so it is not soemthing one can obey, no one can make the Lord baptize them with the HS.

I never said I had it all right. I have learned and grown over the years and I had been mistaken on certain things in the Bible before.

You are accusing inspired Bible writers being wrong in what they wrote by inspiration of the HS.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…