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

[Butterball1]

Does all things include the Law of Moses? (Matthew 5:17-19)?

No,
"to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"
Christians are have not been commanded to keep the Law of Moses. The book of Galatians is condemning some Christians there about leaving the NT and going back to the OT. The book of Hebrews is warning Hebrew Christians about backsliding from Christianity back into Judaism/OT law.

Acts 15 the Apostles met to discuss if circumcision, keeping the OT law of Moses was necessary to be saved. Acts of the Apostles 15:5-6 "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." To which the Apostles said no. Peter says "And put no difference between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith. therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke (law of Moses) upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." The law of Mose put a difference, a wall of partition between Jews and Gentile and Christ removed the OT law of Moses thereby removing that wall separating Jew and Gentile where both Jew and Gentile are saved in the like manner way. So keeping the OT law has nothing to do with salvation of the Jew or Gentile.

 

[Butterball1]

Yes. And that was why I brought them up. That is part of their calling.

You, however, were claiming that EVERY baptized Christian was supposed to do the same work as they (i.e. teaching). That's quite obviously not so and never has been so. I am beginning to think you may have misunderstood something I've been explaining, so I don't know what more can be done to get us on the same page with this.

There is no verse that says just "some" Christians are to teach the gospel. All Christians are under the great commission to teach the gospel. Even though all Christians do not hold the same office, all Christians are to teach the gospel.

 

[Guojing]

No,
"to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"
Christians are have not been commanded to keep the Law of Moses. The book of Galatians is condemning some Christians there about leaving the NT and going back to the OT. The book of Hebrews is warning Hebrew Christians about backsliding from Christianity back into Judaism/OT law.

Acts 15 the Apostles met to discuss if circumcision, keeping the OT law of Moses was necessary to be saved. Acts of the Apostles 15:5-6 "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." To which the Apostles said no. Peter says "And put no difference between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith. therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke (law of Moses) upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." The law of Mose put a difference, a wall of partition between Jews and Gentile and Christ removed the OT law of Moses thereby removing that wall separating Jew and Gentile where both Jew and Gentile are saved in the like manner way. So keeping the OT law has nothing to do with salvation of the Jew or Gentile.

But Jesus taught in Matthew 5:19 onwards to teach others to keep the Law of Moses

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

At no time did the resurrected Christ ever changed that instructions to the 11.

 

[Albion]

There is no verse that says just "some" Christians are to teach the gospel. All Christians are under the great commission to teach the gospel.

In the sense of giving a good witness, being willing to confess the Lord to people we might meet who are seeking, etc., yes.

But the idea that all are to do the work of properly called and qualified pastors/elders...or else they supposedly are not living up to their baptismal vows...is not supported by either scripture or the history of the Christian church.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[JAL]

I am saying that GOD was able to use Peter and to still accomplish His ultimate end goal despite Peter's misunderstanding.

But on Pentecost it wasn't Peter speaking. In true witnessing, which generally is not happening in today's churches, "It will not be you speaking but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you" (Acts 10:20). Thus on Pentecost, "They began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them" (Acts 2:4). Peter further confirmed it was Spirit-inspired speech when he said that Pentecost was a fulfillment of Joel's promised outpouring wherein men SHALL prophesy (he didn't say 'might' prophesy).

But if you are saying that water baptism saves....

You LOVE to put words in my mouth, from what I've seen in the past, and now here.

What I am saying is that every instance of the word "baptize" in the epistles probably refers to Living-Water-baptism and thus resolves any supposed tensions. Salvation/justification/regeneration/sanctification is, technically speaking, incremental in my view (for example any reviving outpouring that falls upon me is an increment of those four terms, in my life). Living-Water baptism is such an increment.

The church should have realized it's incremental because, in both Romans and Galatians, Paul refers back to Abraham's experience at Gen 15:1-6 as "justification by faith" - but Abraham was already justified by faith earlier! (Funny how the commentaries nonchalantly gloss over this point). In essence, then, the reviving outpouring upon Abraham at Gen 15:1 was incremental justification/regeneration or, as I like to put it, it was for sanctification.

The reason the new birth is incremental is because, if the entire human heart were regenerated on the first iteration, no sinful nature would be left. "The old is gone, the new is come" (2Cor 5:17). The new birth eradicates the sinful nature where it is applied, it makes us holy. If God had applied it to the entire human heart already, there would be no sinful nature remaining.

Only Spirit baptism saves.

Moot point. What I am saying is that, in the minds of those who wrote the epistles, the baptism they had in mind could be called water-baptism or Spirit-baptism (they had in mind the same thing due to the reality of Living-Water baptism).

This means I couldn't complete the survey, for example it gave me a choice between:
(A) Spirit-baptism
(B) Water-baptism

But in the early church, at least in the perspective taken in the epistles, those two meant the same thing because REAL baptism (probably not happening today) is Living Water baptism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[JAL]

Not sure what that has to do with Peter's statement on telling the people to be water baptized.
Nothing in these two verses you mentioned proves that Peter was not capable of making errors in judgment, and or speech. For we know that Paul rebuked Peter for a mistake he made (See: Galatians 2:11-21).

Wrong. Pentecost is an explicit instance of Spirit-inspired speech which DOES preclude errors. Essentially Pentecost is the birthday of the modern church, the quintessential example of witnessing for all generations of Christians to aspire to, and is explicitly described as Spirit-inspired speech AND as witnessing AND as prophetic utterance - rife with errors? Please. What happened on Pentecost has nothing to do with later errors in Galatians.

What you say here is still kind of foggy or unclear for me.
Are you talking about Spirit baptism is what really saves while they are being water baptized?

Salvation/justification is incremental. It's not a one-time thing. In the early church, Living Water baptism was one of those increments.

So then what would be option that you would call it if there was a fill in the blank option?

One baptism (in the epistles) means the water baptism common to all the recipients of Paul's letters, all the members of the early church, and thus refers to REAL water-baptism (Living Water baptism at the hands of the apostles or delegates in any stream or container of water available at those moments). This WAS indeed a Spirit-baptism. What you think are two things were, in those days, one and the same thing.

In Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7, Paul baptized by laying his hands on some Ephesian believers. They were not aware of the Holy Spirit and so this is why Paul needed to Spirit baptize them (without water).

In my last two posts I emphasized the "epistles" for a good reason. Don't assume that Luke is thinking Spirit-baptism in the same sense as Paul. Luke mostly focuses on the prophet-Elijah-experience - the reception of the Spirit of prophecy and miracles. THAT type of anointing (Spirit-baptism) was typically transferred at the laying of hands after Living Water baptism and thus is not a commentary on how the term "baptism" was used in the EPISTLES.

 

[JAL]

If it helps to clarify:

Salvation is by faith alone and thus everyone has a measure of the Spirit before water baptism. Scripture does not clearly refer to this initial dosage of the Spirit as "baptism" even though, in essence, it's the same kind of regenerating/sanctifying/reviving anointing that the Christian is supposed to receive, incrementally, throughout his entire Christian life.

There are many ways to receive such anointings. For example in a REAL Eucharist (probably not happening today), we can eat and drink of Him. He can also permeate any of our meals, for "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

In other words, don't presume that the term "baptism" (however you conceive it) is the only way to salvation, or the only way to receiving the Spirit. Baptism in the epistles refers to Living Water baptism and, as such, wasn't necessary for salvation even though, ultimately, it refers to the same kind of (regenerating/sanctifying) anointing that IS necessary for salvation. Living Water baptism was, in the early church, incrementally a "washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).


Is that a bit more clear?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[JAL]

Where on Earth do you think I said that I was referring to the speaking in foreign tongues by the Spirit?

Where on earth did I say I hold to YOUR opinions of Pentecost? Look, Jesus promised that Pentecost would be an outpouring for WITNESSING. Power to speak? Yes. That can ONLY mean Spirit-inspired speech. Acts 2 confirms it was such, in two ways:

(1) It says they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(2) Peter said that Pentecost was a fulfillment of Joel's promise of prophetic utterance.

That's NOT EVEN TO MENTION that Jesus elsewhere defined witnessing as Spirit-inspired speech, "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you." Scripture universally defines witnessing as prophesying (Spirit-inspired speech) for example, "And I will empower my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth" (Rev 11:3).


Any notion on your part that Peter's speech/witnessing on Pentecost was some uninspired, random rambling without the help of the Spirit is ENTIRELY BOGUS. Clear?

So you believe water baptism is a part of salvation? What about 1 Peter 3:21?

(Sigh) You think that what LOOKED like ordinary water in those days was, indeed, ordinary water. It was not. See for example 1Cor 10:2-4 for another example of being physically immersed in, and even drinking of, the Living Water.


I don't know why you think 1 Peter 3:21 is some kind of hurdle for me.
What about it? What's your point? What's the big objection here? You seem to be insinuating that the verse makes a clear distinction between water-baptism and Spirit-baptism when in fact it does not clearly do so and is perfectly compatible with my views. Also you seem to keep ignoring my points made about incremental salvation.

Need a little more explanation on this.

Sounds like feigned confusion. I've provided quite a bit of clarity, but seems you don't want to consider a view alternative to your own. The problem with your view is that the epistles never clearly call it Spirit-baptism, and thus the bulk of the evidence (in the epistles at least ) favors water-baptism. The epistles simply called it "baptism" (not Spirit-baptism) - obviously evoking in their minds a recollection of water baptism. This potentially creates a theological tension, but it's easily resolved/clarified as Living Water baptism. My metaphysics effectively resolves any tension and thus it handles such passages more smoothly/ seamlessly than your view does.

 

[Guojing]

I am saying that GOD was able to use Peter and to still accomplish His ultimate end goal despite Peter's misunderstanding. Acts 2 is the infancy of the church and they still had to grow and learn.

But if you are saying that water baptism saves. Well, if this is the case, I don't believe the Bible teaches that water baptism saves. For even Peter admitted that water baptism does not save in the putting away of the filthin of the flesh (sin) in 1 Peter 3:21.

“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:” (2 Peter 3:21).​

Note: The words “filth of the flesh” is in reference to sin; For similar wording is used as in reference to sin in 2 Corinthians 7:1.

“Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

Only Spirit baptism saves.

His point is that it was not Peter speaking in Acts 2. It was the Holy Spirit speaking thru Peter, to the nation of Israel.

Mark 16:16 states that it is both BELIEF and Water baptism that saves for the nation of Israel. Both are required

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Guojing]

Yes, thank you. I picked that up on his most recent post.



I believe Mark 16:16 is in reference to Spirit baptism and not water baptism. For Paul said he came not to baptize. But if you equate water baptism with salvation, then that would be like Paul saying I come to save anyone.

Paul was not sent to Israel to preach the gospel of the kingdom like the 12, he was sent to the Gentiles with the gospel of the grace of god (Acts 20:24, Acts 22:21, Romans 11:13)

Under the latter gospel, water baptism is not required for salvation (1 Cor 15:1-4), so Paul is correct in saying he came not to baptize.

 

[JAL]

I do agree that Acts 1 says that they will be witnesses. I even believe Peter was led to speak certain things. But does that mean Peter was not his own person and that every word he spoke was not his own words. I believe the Spirit giving them utterances is in reference to the miracle of speaking and hearing each other in foreign languages.

As the birthday of the modern church, Pentecost had to be the prime example of witnessing for all future generations - and God kicked it off by recording Peter speaking a bunch of guesswork on his own? That seems insanely weak but you can believe it if you want to.

Nowhere did I say that Peter rambled and nowhere did I say that Peter was completely devoid of any guidance of the Spirit when he spoke at Pentecost. What I am saying is that Peter was also speaking from his past experience. What Peter learned from being with Jesus was to repent and be baptized according to John's baptism. However, in Acts 2: I don't think Peter understood what Jesus was really saying in Acts 1.

Oh I see. How convenient. It so happens that the Spirit was guiding Peter on all those statements where his doctrine agrees with yours. But wherever his doctrine HAPPENS to disagree with yours, you conveniently conclude that, at that particular second, he was NOT guided by the Spirit. Very convenient.

“For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” (Acts of the Apostles 1:5).

Here Jesus makes a distinction. Jesus says John baptized you with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. When did that happen? It happened when they spoke in other tongues and not by John's baptism in water.

Relevance? Again, Luke focuses mostly on the reception of the Elijah-style Spirit of prophecy and miracles, which he regarded as a Spirit-baptism. Has nothing to do with the baptismal regeneration/sanctification mentioned in the epistles.

The spiritual Rock and spiritual drink that the Israelites drank of was Christ.
It is a metaphor because God is not the creation.
God is spirit.

Non-sequitur. Yes God is not the creation. It doesn't follow that He is intangible. An intangible God couldn't even push a pencil. I linked you to a whole thread of arguments showing He is tangible.

As Howard Ervin noted, 1Cor 10:2-4 cannot be mere metaphor because it's a warning about judgment. Paul is using that OT example to prove to the Corinthians that the OT saints received the same Spirit-baptism and yet suffered judgments. He is saying, "They got the same Spirit as you did and yet were judged." Paul's example is thus useless - it loses all its persuasive power - if it was a mere metaphor, that is, if those verses do NOT indicate the same Spirit-baptism of today.

1Peter 3:21...must be in reference to Spirit baptism

Where did I say it wasn't? I merely argued that water-baptism, in those days, WAS a form of Spirit-baptism - seems I've repeated this point a dozen times already. How many more times will I have to repeat it before you desist with the strawmen?

we know baptism saves according to Mark 16:16

Even without taking a class in logic, I'm pretty sure that such doesn't necessarily follow from that verse. And I'm pretty sure it is talking about water baptism.

Even the apostle Paul said he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Paul says he only baptized two people and one household. So this shows that baptism is not for salvation. For if it was for salvation, then Paul would have surely included it with the gospel.

Strawman. And Paul probably baptized a lot of people even if he only baptized a few at Corinth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Guojing]

[

 

[JMV]

What is the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5?

I believe the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5 is Spirit baptism (Which automatically takes place generally when a person receives Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior). I believe Spirit baptism is the New Covenant form of baptism that has replaced water baptism in God's new program. Now, that said, before you throw down a hammer of verses to refute me, please realize that I believe Peter was mistaken about baptism in Acts chapter 2. In addition, in Acts 10-11: I believe that when Peter recalled the Lord's words on Spirit baptism (from Acts of the Apostles 1:5) he did not fully understand yet that water baptism was no more yet and he was just learning for the first time about Spirit baptism. By the time Peter wrote his letters, I believe that is when he knew that Spirit baptism was the one and only true baptism and that water baptism no longer applied. The same is true for Philip. Philip did not know the true baptism of the New Covenant yet when he encountered the Ethiopian enuch. For we have to remember, that it took time for the Jewish apostles to come out from under the Law of Moses. For the book of Acts is not an account of the apostles getting everything correct or right, but it was an account of their lives in growing and learning in the ways of God. 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.

Thus says the Lord YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH:

"1/13/05 From The Lord, Our God and Savior
The Word of The Lord Spoken to Timothy
For All Those Who Have Ears to Hear

Thus says The Lord, concerning baptism: Let My beloved first be baptized in spirit and in truth, filled with the knowledge of The Holy, nourished by the Word of Truth. Let them come to Me in sincere repentance, and receive forgiveness of sins in The Messiah’s name... All burdens lifted, immersed and purified in The Spirit of God. For The Holy One of Israel is He who baptizes with The Holy Spirit and with fire, and He knows His own.

Therefore, hear and understand: The Water of Life is not of the earth. Rather The Water of Life is that which flows from the body of Messiah. For in Him alone shall one know salvation and receive everlasting life. Therefore be baptized in the knowledge and wisdom of The Beloved. Listen to Him and walk in His ways, and you shall surely be accepted.
Tell Me, is the water of the earth able to take away your sins, or cleanse you of your transgressions? Can a river lead you to salvation or a stream call you to repentance? In what waters have you heard The Word of God speak? Thus baptism by water can not save you.


Rather salvation comes by the hearing of The Gospel,
And through the confession of the mouth that YahuShua,
Called Jesus, is Lord, believing HE IS WHO HE IS...

The Risen One...

The Only Way, The Only Truth, The Only Life...

For only by true repentance, in accord with the heart’s desire
To be in union with The Messiah, shall one be set free.


So then go forth, and be baptized in the waters of the earth, if you so desire. Yet remember this: Baptism in and of itself is nothing, unless the heart of the one being immersed has truly been converted. Thus baptism is for a testimony, an exercise in faith for the one who is saved already; or a mere dampening of the clothes of the one who came forth in pretense. For I am The Lord, I search the hearts and minds, and I know whether or not one has truly been converted in their heart."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thus says the Lord YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH:

"1/13/05 From The Lord, Our God and Savior
The Word of The Lord Spoken to Timothy
For All Those Who Have Ears to Hear

Thus says The Lord, concerning baptism: Let My beloved first be baptized in spirit and in truth, filled with the knowledge of The Holy, nourished by the Word of Truth. Let them come to Me in sincere repentance, and receive forgiveness of sins in The Messiah’s name... All burdens lifted, immersed and purified in The Spirit of God. For The Holy One of Israel is He who baptizes with The Holy Spirit and with fire, and He knows His own.

Therefore, hear and understand: The Water of Life is not of the earth. Rather The Water of Life is that which flows from the body of Messiah. For in Him alone shall one know salvation and receive everlasting life. Therefore be baptized in the knowledge and wisdom of The Beloved. Listen to Him and walk in His ways, and you shall surely be accepted.
Tell Me, is the water of the earth able to take away your sins, or cleanse you of your transgressions? Can a river lead you to salvation or a stream call you to repentance? In what waters have you heard The Word of God speak? Thus baptism by water can not save you.


Rather salvation comes by the hearing of The Gospel,
And through the confession of the mouth that YahuShua,
Called Jesus, is Lord, believing HE IS WHO HE IS...

The Risen One...

The Only Way, The Only Truth, The Only Life...

For only by true repentance, in accord with the heart’s desire
To be in union with The Messiah, shall one be set free.


So then go forth, and be baptized in the waters of the earth, if you so desire. Yet remember this: Baptism in and of itself is nothing, unless the heart of the one being immersed has truly been converted. Thus baptism is for a testimony, an exercise in faith for the one who is saved already; or a mere dampening of the clothes of the one who came forth in pretense. For I am The Lord, I search the hearts and minds, and I know whether or not one has truly been converted in their heart."

We should all be thankful that our Lord is longsuffering, patient, kind, merciful, forgiving us so freely and lovingly. So that when we stand before Him on that Great and Awesome Day when every person must give account, and the false prophets are brought before Him in their shame, even there they may not be turned aside lest they try to boast, "Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name?!" For on that Day no appeal to one's own righteousness will matter, for none stands righteous before the Law when the Books are opened. It is only the Lamb's Book of Life, whereby Christ our Lord having suffered and died and risen again shall bring us through judgment to life.

So, false prophet, what say you. On that day shall you kneel before the Great Lord, Jesus Christ, who rules all things by the word of His command, as a humble and penitent servant, like the Publican who beat his chest and rent his garment confessing that he was a sinner. Or shall you be like the Pharisee and brag before the Holy of Holies of your own holiness.

Will you repent of your false prophesying, and teaching the doctrines of demons to tickle the ears of those too young in the faith to know better? It is written that it would be better for those who would lead children astray to have a stone tied around their neck and thrown into the sea than to face God on the coming Day.

I implore you to repentance, that your faith not be shipwrecked and you find yourself dashed against the rocks. But instead to repent, humble yourself before Christ, and be restored to Christ in faith--abandon your reckless delusions and return to faith.

-CryptoLutheran