Which baptism is the "one baptism" of Christianity?

[TLSITD]

Salvation is a process which starts at Baptism.

No, salvation is not a process. It is a one time event that happens when a person receives the Holy Spirit. Provided that person doesn't forfeit it before he or she dies, he or she has eternal life and is saved. Practical sanctification is a lifelong process. Salvation is not.

We're not doing works to be saved. If we are in Christ we're already saved. But if we choose not to abide by God's conditions for keeping that gift, He can take it away.

 

[TLSITD]

You might want to go back and look at early church history and its doctrines.

For instance, just a couple examples (What Early Christians believed about BAPTISM):
110-165 AD Martyr "there is no other way [to obtain God's promises] than this-to become acquainted with Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins, and for the remainder, to live sinless lives." (Justin Martyr, Trypho chap. 44)
140-230 AD Tertullian "Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins" (Baptism 7:2).
150-200 AD CLEMENT "Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal... This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 215)
200 AD HERMAS "And I said, 'I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sin.' He said to me, 'That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case.'" (Hermas, "The Shepherd," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 22)


With all due respect, I get that you believe certain things, but you have yet to provide any scriptural backup for any of your assertions.

This objection to Christian baptism has already been debunked as a logical fallacy as well as an argument completely removed from the context in which Paul stated it. See post #23.

Interestingly, this objection to Christian baptism is perhaps the oldest one out there. Tertullian even addressed it in the 2nd century:
140-230 AD TERTULLIAN "But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, 'For Christ sent me not to baptize;' as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the 'peacemaking' apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent 'not to baptize, but to preach.' For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was." (Tertullian, "On Baptism," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 676)

I'm sorry, but just because some early Christians believed or practiced or taught something, that does not determine the correctness of it according to Scripture.

Infant water baptisms, the ritual of "communion" (which is not the same as the Lord's Supper) and the accompanying belief in transubstantiation, tithing, or whatever else Christians may believe in or practice by tradition are not correct just because they believe that they are.

Do the people who get saved on their deathbeds get water baptized? No. Neither did the thief on the cross. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

[TLSITD]

Baptism is very much a requirement as Christ said one must be baptized to have Salvation, there is no wiggle room. I also might add that Baptism is something God does, it is not a work of men

It is the true baptism of the Holy Spirit that is required for salvation (and that is the work of God), not the symbolic baptism of water.

When Jesus told Nicodemus that no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit, it was not water baptism He was referring to. He was comparing natural birth to spiritual rebirth. The first birth, of water, gives a person physical life. The second birth, by the Spirit, gives a person spiritual life.

 

[Radagast]

No, salvation is not a process.

Yes, it is. It includes several one-time events, such as election, conversion, and justification, but it also includes the process of sanctification.

 

[Radagast]

Infant water baptisms, the ritual of "communion" (which is not the same as the Lord's Supper) and the accompanying belief in transubstantiation, tithing, or whatever else Christians may believe in or practice by tradition are not correct just because they believe that they are.

Nor are they wrong just because one unorthodox person says that they are wrong.

 

[DerSchweik]

I'm sorry, but just because some early Christians believed or practiced or taught something, that does not determine the correctness of it according to Scripture.

Well, you're absolutely right. That said, it DOES speak to the general understanding of the subject - especially so close to the first century.

Do the people who get saved on their deathbeds get water baptized? No.

First, understand I'm not saying unequivocally that's not a possibility - but "death bed conversions" are one form of "exception-seeking" fallacies - or "special pleading" logical fallacies aka, "moving the goalposts" fallacies. Generally speaking, those who employ such logical fallacies do so because they know they're unable to refute the evidences presented them thus far in an argument - hence, their resorting to "exceptions" to hypothetical happenstance situations.

Some examples are the "getting hit by a bus (or a train, or lightning bolt, errant asteroid, etc.) on the way to the baptistry. Another is "what if there's no water to baptize?" (e.g. in a desert or the arctic). Another is "what if the person is physically handicapped?"

In effect, exception-seekers claim that there can be - and ARE - exceptions to the salvation process - usually so that they can rationalize after the fact (mostly for their own sake) some reason why what they believed to be true must continue to be so (despite obvious evidence to the contrary).

Neither did the thief on the cross.

The thief on the cross is probably the premiere case of exception-seeking in employ today, and arguably in a class all its own.

Question: If Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection form the very core of the gospel message (for if Jesus hadn't died, been buried, and then been raised from the dead our faith would be in vain - I Cor 15:3ff), how can it be the thief was saved? Jesus hadn't died, so He certainly hadn't been buried and He definitely hadn't been resurrected from the dead - so how is the thief in ANY WAY an example for us of how to become saved today?

Answer: he isn't an example for us today of how to be saved. Pure and simple.

That said - was he saved? Absolutely. I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out why.

 

[DerSchweik]

No, salvation is not a process. It is a one time event that happens when a person receives the Holy Spirit. Provided that person doesn't forfeit it before he or she dies, he or she has eternal life and is saved. Practical sanctification is a lifelong process. Salvation is not.

You know, just once - ONCE I'd like to see you quote Scripture in support of your assertions.

Thing is, I also know why you don't - because you can't - because there are no Scriptures that support what you so blithely assert. And it hurts me to say that, but it's true.

Salvation is most definitely a process - consider Rom 10:14ff - Paul gives us a perfect example of why it's a process: "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent?"
Preaching - Hearing - Believing - Calling on Him. Brother, how is that NOT a process?
But... there's more; back in v. 10 of that same chapter Paul includes Confession in the process.
In Acts 2:38 Peter includes Repentance and Baptism in the process. One simply cannot deny this and retain any semblance of integrity!

Hear, believe, confess, repent, calling on Him, submitting to baptism - of course it's a process!

 

[charsan]

It is the true baptism of the Holy Spirit that is required for salvation (and that is the work of God), not the symbolic baptism of water.

Nope. All over the NT Baptism is Water Baptism and if none happens than there is no salvation as Christ says. You can kick against the goad all you will but even in Ancient times from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers all agree on Water Baptism. The position that one does not Baptism is new relatively speaking and a Christian heresy

 

[James A]

No, salvation is not a process. It is a one time event that happens when a person receives the Holy Spirit. Provided that person doesn't forfeit it before he or she dies, he or she has eternal life and is saved. Practical sanctification is a lifelong process. Salvation is not.

We're not doing works to be saved. If we are in Christ we're already saved. But if we choose not to abide by God's conditions for keeping that gift, He can take it away.

I am afraid you are contradicting yourself. How does a person "doesn't forfeit it"? Well, by continuing a life style ( love thy neighbor etc.) commanded by Christ (Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin - James 4:17) . Hope we are not spending our time on terminology.

This is another doctrine where the discussion could go on for a long time despite Bible states it unambiguously - about the works. It is work that makes faith, Faith. Demons believe Jesus is Son of God but that "faith" has no relevance. Agreed, we must keep in mind that due to the Fallen nature , we cannot earn Salvation no matter what we do nonetheless, there are things that we could do and should do to make our self a candidate for the Grace.

 

[Sam81]

The natural man receiveth not the things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:14

Water baptism, while commanded as a profession of faith, is very important in that it is a reflection of saving baptism: that is, baptism in the Holy Spirit - dying to the world and being raised unto God.

Communion, the eating of bread and drinking of wine, commanded to be done in remembrance, is very important in that it is a reflection of sanctification: that is, the consuming of God's word and newness of life.

Friends, the good fight of faith is not a bath followed by standing in line once a week for crackers and grape juice. It is the worship of God in spirit and in truth. It's surrendering one's life. It is 100% commitment to Jesus Christ 100% of the time. We are called out of the world and into fellowship with God and one another.

 

[Guojing]

Which means circumcision is included in that case.

Gentiles were never under the law of Moses and never will be under the law of Moses. That is why Gentiles are not circumcised.

Yes, we were saved when Israel rejected their Gospel of the Kingdom, they rejected their Messiah.

So, under the gospel of grace, we are saved thru their fall, their blindness. Romans 9 to 11 has the details.

Under the gospel of grace, neither water baptism nor circumcision, nor the Law of Moses, were required for salvation.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, we were saved when Israel rejected their Gospel of the Kingdom, they rejected their Messiah.

I agree.

So, under the gospel of grace

Very well written and that is the truth.

we are saved thru their fall, their blindness. Romans 9 to 11 has the details.

That apparently is the mechanism that God chose.

Under the gospel of grace, neither water baptism nor circumcision, nor the Law of Moses, were required for salvation.

Back to Romans chapters nine to eleven inclusive.

Romans 11:32-33
For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

The gospel of Jesus Christ is given by grace through faith, and not by merit or works.

 

[SkyWriting]

The one baptism of Ephesians 4 is the Sacrament of Christian Baptism, which is always done using water....

Water is not always available in quantity or in time.
And spit is rude. But approved by Jesus.

 

[Guojing]

I agree.Very well written and that is the truth.That apparently is the mechanism that God chose.Back to Romans chapters nine to eleven inclusive.

Romans 11:32-33
For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

The gospel of Jesus Christ is given by grace through faith, and not by merit or works.

Yes, the main confusion between many Christians is that they assumed they were the audience Jesus was addressing, when he gave the Great Commission to the 11 apostles.

But even then, they pick and choose which parts of that Commission they are going to follow, and which ones they ignore.

 

[Zao is life]

Ephesians 4:4-6 reads

There is one body and one Spirit---just as you were called to one hope when you were called---one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

And in Luke 3:16 John the baptizer says,
"I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

I think most non-Catholics would agree that water baptism doesn't save a person and that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves one, which spiritual baptism every believer receives when he or she is born again (having been buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. Colossians 2:12) .

What then is the purpose of water baptism? For Jews it was a symbolic ritual representing a desire for a good conscience toward God and repentance from sins. Jesus' disciples and the early Christians practiced the same ritual. Yet we have no instructions in the NT for how to water baptize or any command to perform or partake in the ritual.

Some believe that Christ sent the apostles to baptize people with water as a part of their evangelistic commission. But if there is only one baptism that saves, why would He? The two are obviously not one and the same.

The apostle Paul water baptized a few people, but he said that Christ did not send him to baptize but rather to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:13-17), through which those who hear and believe are baptized by the Spirit.

Why would the man who was arguably the greatest apostle not have been sent by Christ to water baptize if water baptism was an important or necessary part of Christianity, and if Jesus had indeed sent His other apostles to water baptize?

I am one Christian who believes that water baptism is an obsolete Jewish ritual that was carried over into Christianity for a time in the early days of the faith for its symbolic spiritual significance but which God didn't intend for Christians to continue and which is not necessary or important to administer or to partake in.

I feel that water baptism, if the person being baptized understands that it represents him/her dying with Christ, going down into hades, and being raised with Christ, is important and beneficial for the person who receives it. To me it's like your first public confession of your faith, which like a marriage ceremony (Romans 7:4), takes place in front of witnesses. This is also why I prefer full-immersion in water.

Romans 6:3-10
"Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection;

knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin. For he who died has been justified from sin. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that when Christ was raised from the dead, He dies no more; death no longer has dominion over Him. For in that He died, He died to sin once; but in that He lives, He lives to God."

Romans 7:4
"So, my brothers, you also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ so that you should be married to Another, even to Him raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God."

Baptism and Communion are to me the only two outward rituals which are important as a symbol of an inward change wrought by God through Christ, the rest of the outward signs lie in works which show the fruit of Christ, the vine - and Baptism, unlike Communion, is a once-off thing. Communion shows that abiding in Christ, the vine, is a continual process till we die.

 

[Danthemailman]

Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. *Also see John 4:10,14; 7:37 for the word drink(s). The two elements found in the new birth (John 3:5) are living water and the Spirit (Who is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing).

There is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is Spirit baptism, not water baptism.

 

[DerSchweik]

The natural man receiveth not the things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:14

Water baptism, while commanded as a profession of faith, is very important in that it is a reflection of saving baptism: that is, baptism in the Holy Spirit - dying to the world and being raised unto God.

Please cite the Scripture(s) that says Christian baptism is commanded as a "profession of faith."
Please cite the Scripture(s) that says Christian baptism is a "reflection of saving baptism."
Please cite the Scripture(s) that says Christian baptism is "baptism in the Holy Spirit."

 

[DerSchweik]

Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. *Also see John 4:10,14; 7:37 for the word drink(s). The two elements found in the new birth (John 3:5) are living water and the Spirit (Who is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing).

There is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is Spirit baptism, not water baptism.

With all due respect, it is an unfortunate (and dangerous) travesty of interpretation to make the conclusions you have above, based solely on I Cor 12:13, lifting it as you have completely out of context.

Question - WHEN did/does this "Spirit baptism" take place, according to Scripture?
Question - WHEN does Scripture say we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

And how does your unfortunate interpretation here comport with all the other Scriptures already shared about Christian baptism, if not nullify them entirely?

Ps 119:160 - "The SUM of Thy Word is truth."

 

[DerSchweik]

Water is not always available in quantity or in time.
And spit is rude. But approved by Jesus.

This has already been shown to be a logical fallacy - the positing of hypothetical exceptions (like "what if a person gets hit by a bus on their way to the baptistry?") to rationalize current beliefs.

 

[DerSchweik]

It is the true baptism of the Holy Spirit that is required for salvation (and that is the work of God), not the symbolic baptism of water.

Where does Scripture say that Christian baptism is "symbolic?"

When Jesus told Nicodemus that no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit, it was not water baptism He was referring to. He was comparing natural birth to spiritual rebirth. The first birth, of water, gives a person physical life. The second birth, by the Spirit, gives a person spiritual life.

How do you know John 3 is not referring to water baptism?
It has already been acknowledged that just because an early Christian leader believed something, this doesn't necessarily prove it to be true.

That said, it doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong either.

Was Justin Martyr wrong?
110-165AD Martyr "Those who are convinced that what we teach is true and who desire to live accordingly are instructed to fast and to pray to God for the remission of all their past sins. We also pray and fast with them. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated. They then receive the washing with water in the name of God (the Father and Lord of the universe) and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"' [John 3:5]. (Justin First Apology chant 61)

Was Irenaeus wrong?
120-205 AD IRENAEUS "As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, "Fragments From Lost Writings", no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574)

Was Tertullian wrong?
140-230 AD TERTULLIAN "The prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none' chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, 'Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'" (On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 674-675)

Was Theophilus wrong?
181 AD Theophilus of Antioch "Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God" (To Autolycus 12:16).

Or was perhaps (and just perhaps, mind you) the teacher, the tradition, the church teaching that taught you what you now believe - perhaps they were wrong?